Datasets:

andyP

/

fake_news_en_opensources

like 1

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/kerry-to-come-to-moscow-on-working-visit-march-23-24-russian-foreign-ministry.html/

Kerry to come to Moscow on working visit March 23-24 — Russian Foreign Ministry

Read also MOSCOW, March 19. /TASS/. US Secretary of State John Kerry will come to Russia on a working visit on March 23-24, the Russian Foreign Ministry has said. At a meeting with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the parties will discuss bilateral cooperation and current international problems, the ministry said. “The situation in the Russian-American relations remains complicated. The series of confrontation steps, Washington has undertaken on the plea of the Ukrainian crisis, affected the cooperation greatly,” the ministry said. “From March, 2014, the US froze work of the bilateral Presidential commission, limited the dialogue between authorities, in several stages introduced the visa and property sanctions against Russian individuals and entities, which are contradicting the international law, in January of the current year it revoked accreditation from Russia’s most honored consuls in the US” Read also “The trade turnover in 2015 slumped by almost a third – to $$20 billion,” the Russian ministry said. “On our side, we have been initiating continuously the issue of removing irritations, which Washington had made in the bilateral agenda. We insist the US law enforcers stop “hunting” for Russians in third countries. We insist on observing of the rights of compatriots living in the US, especially a proper protection of interests of the adopted Russian children.” “We hope, the visit of the US Secretary of State John Kerry to Russia – the third in less than one year – will favor returning to normal the Russian-American relations, upon atmosphere of which depends a lot the general climate on the international arena.” Read also

fake

beforeitsnews.com

2017-11-27

http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2012/08/obamacare-payola-2458884.html

Science and Technology

Obamacare Payola? % of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents. (Before It's News) Most who followed the “progress” of Obamacare through both houses of Congress are familiar with political payoffs such as the Cornhusker Deal, the Louisiana Purchase and other backroom shenanigans to win votes. If this is business as usual we are in big trouble as a country. But almost 4 years after the year long snow job was pulled off on the American public it now appears the plot thickens. Politico reports there is evidence Jim Messina, Obama’s campaign manager, may have cut deals on behalf of “big Pharma” to insure the passage of Obamacare. A House Energy and Commerce Committee report out Tuesday is stocked with emails sent from private addresses and meetings scheduled away from the building to avoid official record. Among these are several sent to a pharmaceutical industry lobbyist by Messina, then President Barack Obama’s then-deputy White House chief of staff, making promises about language for the health care reforms despite the resistance of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to the measure. “I will roll [P]elosi to get the 4 billion,” Messina wrote Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) lobbyist Jeffrey Forbes from his personal account just days before the Affordable Care Act cleared Congress in March 2010. “As you may have heard I am literally rolling over the house. But there just isn’t 8-10 billion.” Ah yes, Mrs. Pelosi. The Speaker that famously declared “We have to pass the bill in order to know what was in it.” Now perhaps we know why she said that. She didn’t build that by herself . . . “What we have learned from our many investigations is that, time and again, the Obama administration’s actions have failed to match the president’s lofty rhetoric on transparency,” Stearns said. No kidding. But then, it IS the Chicago way of politics. After POLITICO published a story in February 2011 on meetings arranged at offices on Jackson Place near the White House, White House press secretary Jay Carney said “the guiding principle here is transparency, and we believe that — nobody is, that I’m aware of, is hiding where they’re meeting.” “It is routine for the White House officials to meet with all types of people, including lobbyists, and frequently here,” Carney said. “The suggestion that we’re not being transparent is laughable given the unbelievable precedent this administration has set in its — closing the door, the revolving door, and releasing these records.” Is this the same Carney that either did not know or refused to answer the direct question, “What is the capital of Israel”? This is reminiscent of the infamous Watergate hearings and the staged memory loss of the participants. Original content copyright © InsureBlog Source:

fake

beforeitsnews.com

2017-11-27

http://beforeitsnews.com/survival/2013/01/award-winning-tv-hunting-host-randy-newberg-among-new-rmef-board-members-2457850.html

Award-winning TV Hunting Host, Randy Newberg, Among New RMEF Board Members

Award-winning TV Hunting Host, Randy Newberg, Among New RMEF Board Members (Before It's News) Randy Newberg, of On Your Own Adventure Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation MISSOULA, Mont. --(Ammoland.com)- The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is pleased to welcome six new members to its board of directors. Among them is Randy Newberg, host of the popular television hunting show, “On Your Own Adventures.” “Randy is a longtime friend to RMEF,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “But even more than that, his passion for conservation, public access and wildlife management, and his leadership will offer a clear, wise direction for our organization for years to come.” “My vision is the RMEF will continue the valuable conservation work that has made such a difference in my life, all while adding to access efforts RMEF has provided for those of us who use these public lands,” said Newberg. “My vision is also that RMEF will provide leadership on important land and habitat issues during a time when funding for conservation is being cut, when public lands are being looked at as a liability, and when hunting can be even more valuable to our society. The ultimate vision being that all Americans understand that Hunting is Conservation.” In his role as host and producer of “On Your Own Adventures,” Newberg is an avid self-guided public lands hunter from Bozeman, Mont. While filming, he hunts all Western states for all species; researching and planning his hunts, then heading to the hills like most hunters, on his own. Newberg’s passion is sharing those experiences with others while also teaching them tactics and strategies to increase their success, and hopefully giving them the encouragement and enthusiasm to go and create their own hunting adventures. Newberg serves as a volunteer for many conservation organizations. In addition to his work for RMEF, he is also an advisory member to the chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus in Washington, D.C., and a fundraising volunteer for local hunting and fishing groups. He is involved in national and regional policy efforts to improve and protect public land access, specifically access important to hunters. “I am excited for the opportunity to be of service to a group I have been a part of for more than 20 years, yet balanced by my realization that great responsibility comes with the position,” added Newberg. “I have great enthusiasm to make a difference on behalf of the many hunters, much like me, who if not for public lands and conservation work on those lands, probably would have never had the chance to become an elk hunter.” Randy and his wife, Kim, live in Bozeman, Mont. Randy is a certified public accountant by vocation and, more importantly, a hunter and conservation volunteer by passion. Sportsman Channel recently named him the Sportsman of the Year at the 2012 Sportsman Choice Awards in Las Vegas. RMEF will announce other additions to its board of directors in the near future. About the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation RMEF is leading a conservation initiative that protected or enhanced habitat on more than 6.2 million acres—an area larger than Yellowstone, Great Smoky Mountains, Grand Canyon, Glacier, Yosemite and Rocky Mountain national parks combined. RMEF also is a strong voice for hunters in access, wildlife management and conservation policy issues. RMEF members, partners and volunteers, working together as Team Elk, are making a difference all across elk country. Join us at www.rmef.org or 800-CALL ELK. Source:

fake

beforeitsnews.com

2017-11-27

http://beforeitsnews.com/survival/2013/01/stephen-hunter-paul-markel-this-week-on-gun-talk-radio-2457852.html

Stephen Hunter & Paul Markel – This Week on Gun Talk Radio

Stephen Hunter & Paul Markel – This Week on Gun Talk Radio (Before It's News) Student of the Gun’s Paul Markel Gun Talk Radio MANDEVILLE, LA --(Ammoland.com)- It’s writer Stephen Hunter, two state groups, a lifetime “student of the gun”, and more, this week on Tom Gresham’s Gun Talk Radio, the original nationally-syndicated radio talk show about guns and the shooting sports. This Sunday, novelist Stephen Hunter stops by Gun Talk to discuss his newest book, The Third Bullet. This latest offering from Hunter brings back beloved character Bob Lee Swagger to investigate the murder of President Kennedy. The Third Bullet is available at Amazon.com: http://amzn.to/14ashWA. California gun owners are on high-alert after the New York legislature passed its’ latest gun control bill. Tony Montanarella, President of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, drops in to discuss the latest actions CRPA is taking to prevent further erosions to California gun owners. For more information, visit http://crpa.org/. The Connecticut Citizens Defense League is a “non-partisan, grass roots organization advocating for the right to keep and bear arms in Connecticut”. Formed in February of 2009, the CCDL currently boasts approximately 3,600 members statewide”. President of the CCDL Scott Wilson Sr. visits Gun Talk to discuss a public hearing on firearms to be held in Hartford on Monday, January 28th, and more. Visit http://www.ccdl.us for more info. Also stopping by on Sunday is Paul Markel, host and producer of Student of the Gun. Markel is a former Marine and law enforcement officer, a writer, and a small arms and tactics instructor. Read his latest piece from The Outdoor Wire http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/ features/226974 and check out Student of the Gun here: www.studentofthegun.com/. About:In its 18th year of national syndication, Tom Gresham’s Gun Talk Radio airs live on Sundays from 2PM-5PM Eastern, and runs on more than 135 stations, plus on XM (Ch. 165) Satellite Radio. All Gun Talk shows can be downloaded as podcasts at http://www.guntalk.libsyn.com and Apple iTunes, or through one of the available Apps: the Gun Talk iPhone App, the Blackberry Podcast App, and the Gun Talk App for Android on Amazon. The Gun Talk Minute on XM also airs on XM 165, 166, 168 and Fox Sports every day throughout the week. More information is available at www.guntalk.com. Source:

political

pjmedia.com

2017-11-27

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/archive/archives2/008357.php

Glenn Reynolds

Instapundit.com -

NO ROOM AT THE INN: The Dionne quintuplets were born on May 28, 1934, to a humble, French-speaking couple in a farmhouse outside of Callander, Ontario, Canada. They were identical sisters and for the first 10 years of their lives, the five girls were the No. 1 tourism attraction in Canada. Then came free health care for all Canadians. Which is why the four identical Jepp sisters were born in Great Falls, Mont., instead of Calgary this weekend. The Canadian parents flew 325 miles to get to an American hospital. . . . I’m sure most Canadians like their health system. Just remember, though, that Canada’s backup system is in Montana. Americans spend 15% of their income on health care. That’s why Great Falls has enough neo-natal units to handle quadruple births — and a “universal health” nation doesn’t. After all, they didn’t fly Mrs. Jepp to Cuba, did they?

bias

patriotpost.us

2017-11-27

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/21722/print

A Country Without Liberty for You

The Patriot Post ® · A Country Without Liberty for You Sung to the tune George Jones, A picture of me without you Imagine a country where tyranny rules And think of a man singing the out of work blues If you’ve seen a President act like a King Then you’ve see a future without freedom for you If you’ve seen a Congress stop the economy from growing Or stood in a soup line to stop the stomach from growling If you ever looked up to see a bunch of new Laws Then you’ve see a future without freedom for you Can you Picture a pay check that won’t pay the Bills Or a quite Monday morning with no work to go to If you’ve watched Liberty disappear from your sight Then you’ve see a future without freedom for you Your children will pay the bills our elected are growing And think of the budget government ain’t showing If you ever looked up and seen no roof over your head Then you’ve seen a country where Liberty’s dead By Anton D Rehling, 11-11-2013

political

pjmedia.com

2017-11-27

https://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/4/11/interview-kathy-shaidle/5/

Interview: Kathy Shaidle on Confessions of a Failed Slut

So they sent that out. And instead of saying, as you would think feminists would, oh good, Dr. Phil wants to talk about this issue on his highly rated program and maybe we can start a dialogue and all that, he was condemned for the very notion of just the act of sending the Tweet out and asking the question and trying to get some honest answers from kids and being able to say, see, this is what kids think. What can we do about it? And it's ‑‑ it's just so representative of the kind of bizarre not-getting-it, that just seems to be endemic out there on social media. But not just on social media. Someone has the temerity to even ask a question, and they're immediately denounced. And it's kind of scary. And I don't know if there's anything we can really do about it at this point, because so many people have been encouraged all through high school and college and at home, that their every grievance must be aired and listened to no matter how stupid. Even if they are the ones who don't seem to understand what's going on, they have a right to their opinion, even if it's dumb. And as a result, when things like this happen, shows get canceled [but] it didn't happen with [Dr. Phil]. But important conversations aren't had because people are just terrified to even ask what would have been considered normal, even sane questions, five or ten years ago. Now, certain topics are just forbidden. And I don't get it. I don't know how this advances feminism. I don't know how it protects women. There just seem to be a lot of really stupid people out there who unfortunately have access to the Internet. And it's making the rest of our lives really, really miserable. MR. DRISCOLL: In the golden age of the 1960s-era of New Journalism, Tom Wolfe rode the bus with Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters, Truman Capote visited death row, and Hunter S. Thompson hung out with the Hell’s Angels to bring back astonishing stories of America at its weirdest. You mentioned social media a few moments ago; recently, you went undercover to bring back one of the strangest stories of all: the dating scene at the 9/11 Truther-oriented message board InfoWars. I’m glad you survived; could you talk about your experiences? MS. SHAIDLE: Well, you know the funny thing about that was, as you say, I thought this'll be kind of fun. First of all, Alex Jones has a dating site at Infowars which I had no idea about. But my blog readers send me this stuff all the time. And I thought, oh, that'll be fun. I will sign up for this somehow, and I will, you know, catfish over there. I will go undercover and I will see the crazy people who are at the Alex Jones dating site. What are they like? What do their profile pictures look like? What are their descriptions like? Won't it be hilarious? And I was disappointed and kind of humbled when I got there and realized that there were really very few people on this site. And the ones that were there were almost impossible to make fun of. I felt kind of bad. I feel bad for any lonely people who are looking for somebody. I remember being single; I didn't like it. And I kind of had to come away; [this] was sort of a failed mission, but a successful one. Because I went in there hoping to make fun of all these guys, and I ended up seeing that they were people too, even though I probably would loathe their political beliefs and their bizarre conspiracy theories and their ideas about FEMA camps and stuff like that. But there was something oddly touching about these kind of misfit people all looking for each other, especially since there really were only about six or ten of them, and they could very easily have just kind of called each other up or written each other. I mean, it's not like it's not like eHarmony. There aren't thousands of people to choose from. So that in and of itself, sort of seemed a bit poignant to me in a funny kind of away. And so I was disappointed that I didn't get a kind of a hilarious mean-spirited story out of it. But you know, maybe shame on me for trying to do that in the first place.

bias

patriotpost.us

2017-11-27

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/34483/print

The Patriot Post

The Patriot Post ® · Gun Violence News flash: Gun violence is not a phenomenon that needs analysis. Firearms have been around for 500 years or longer, depending upon who you ask. Violent encounters between the good, the bad and the ugly have been happening for tens of thousands of years with what were then modern weapons, knives, swords, clubs, fists, spears, arrows shot from a bow. All those who are horrified by any violence and use of weapons and think it will stop by removing any type of defensive weapons from the population have their head in the clouds of pure ignorance. You cannot restrict the ownership of defensive weapons because some tyrant or criminal misuses them for evil intent. Those who advocate that do not live in the real world, that is until they face the specter of their death by someone who could care less if there is tight gun control laws that are imposed upon all people. Gun bans do nothing but disarm potential victims and make committing crime a lot safer. Worldwide criminal enterprise is huge business producing billions of dollars per year, more than all the Fortune 500 companies combined. Those who are not savvy enough to obtain millions and billions of dollars like organized crime, but have the same criminal mentality that believes work is for chumps, have chosen, what they believe to be, the easy way and have no problem getting what they want through criminal activity and force. Those who do not accept responsibility for their own defense and think the police will protect them will never see the chalk line that may be draw around their cold bodies as part of the police investigation of their violent deaths. If one ignores a basic human responsibility for their own defense and refuses to prepare for that possible day, even though that day may never come, will never forgive themselves if one day they are forced to stand by and watch a love one’s life end because of a fantasy belief that left them unarmed and an easy victim. The source of crime and violence is not the presence of a weapon, specifically today, a firearm, a gun, a smoke wagon or whatever you want to call it; it is the criminal and you cannot control a criminal by disarming their potential victims. Those of us that realize since the beginning, the human race has always had violent people and tyrannical governments. The best defense, that can be obtained today, is a well-functioning fire arm. The way to stop criminals and keep tyranny in check is not a gun free zone but an armed population.

bias

patriotpost.us

2017-11-27

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/25689/print

We Are Not the Rebels

The Patriot Post ® · We Are Not the Rebels “We the People” are not the rebels against our established limited and defined government of the United States of America. We are the people whose founders created a limited representative government to protect our rights and freedom. Our elected have rebelled against us in that they have ignored their job description re-defining their limits as representatives and protectors of our individual rights and freedom; they have expanded their job description through an abuse of power un-granted by our constitution. Our elected have redefined their title and job description from Representative to Benevolent Lawmaker’s, passing laws that increase their claim on our work and land, passing regulations through appointed Department heads that regulate all we do in our daily lives. We have arrived at the point, where the quote from Stalin’s side kick Beria, “Show me the man and I will show you the crime.” has arrived in the United States of America. Those that have violated their oath have done so under the color of law; laws created by those oath violators to allow their ever increasing erosion of the foundation of our Freedom and Rights granted by our creator not government. Our elected have expanded their Power over the people through despotic created laws and regulation that define all we can and can’t do. Our elected have expanded tax collection to include all activity and all sources of revenue no matter how minuscule, a far cry from the origin of this current theft of our blood and sweat called the 16th Amendment. The 16th amendment started to feed the beast more than needed and the beast just got hungrier and so ravenous that the world would not be enough much less an unheard of excessive tax on a citizens earnings owed today to the Federal government in addition to all the other taxes and fees added to our burden to support the beast. Our government has made it standard operating procedure to give away our nation’s wealth to 170 foreign countries robbing the citizens of the US of A of their wealth and seizing and redistributing our sweat to an ever increasing government dependent class created through their oppressive regulation, laws, taxation and spending, enslaving future generations to an unjustified astronomical government debt. Those we have elected have committed treason and effectively orchestrated a Coup d'état, overthrowing our Constitutional Government, our freedom and rights through regulation, law and expanded taxation beyond what any Free Nation should endure; all enforced by the threat of the brute force of government by a more and more militarized civilian law enforcement and armed government Departments that are the government enforcers we will face for non-compliance. You had better follow your elected representatives, turned entrenched tyrants, dictates or you will be declared an enemy of the state, a criminal or domestic terrorist or worse yet, a conservative, far right wing extremist racist gun nut who uses evil words like Liberty, GOD granted Rights, limited government, tyranny and despots. We are instructed, we must comply, or we will get imprisoned or maybe die in resisting their dictates, and for sure loose a life time of hard work and possessions to our government masters claims on all we own because of the laws and regulation despots have declared the law of the land. Our elected not only are able to orchestrate life time careers as government enforcers, but it is becoming more prevalent that the elected are passing the baton of power from one generation to the next generation of their families who are taught how to game the voters if in fact the election system isn’t too far gone.. Makes you wonder as to the validity of our election system and begin to believe the saying “it is not those who vote that decide an election; it is those who count the vote that decide elections”. There are many that are in the election departments that I am sure are easily bought off with bonuses, promotions and government appointments and some cash in the freezer to influence ballot count. This entrenchment of government elected must stop with term limits of just one term for Senator and two terms for Representatives. Reinstate the original intent of the 17th amendment. All elected or government appointees or government employees that do not follow the constitutional limits are traitors to the principles of freedom this country was founded upon and traitors to “WE the People.” Our constitution is defined and is not open to wide and creative interpretation that our elective have done to justify their abuse of power. We must restore out Rights and Freedom and those we elect must fulfill their obligation to “We the people” and not force us to feel compelled to water the tree of liberty with theirs and our blood. Many have come to the point that the choice “We the People” are being given by our elected is to leave what little wealth our children will inherit from us to them and not oppose tyrannical rule or fight and leave them with LIBERTY. The choice is getting clearer each passing day, Liberty or Death.

bias

patriotpost.us

2017-11-27

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/8689/print

Perhaps Gay Marriage Is an Economic Issue, Mr. Barron

The Patriot Post ® · Perhaps Gay Marriage Is an Economic Issue, Mr. Barron “This election was not a mandate for the Republican Party, nor was it a mandate to act on any social issue, nor should it be interpreted as a political blank check.” – Open letter signed by Christopher Barron I’m going to open with a politically-incorrect question: How can civilizations divorce social realities from economic issues? After all, Republicans in Congress are being urged by Christopher Barron and his supporters “to avoid social issues [code for "gay marriage” and abortion] and focus instead on issues of economic freedom and individual liberty.“ Yet, marriage is an economic issue. Aborting useless eaters is a freedom issue. And if Christopher Barron’s tribal GOProud, a self-proclaimed conservative group for homosexuals, transgendered people, and their allies doesn’t believe me, he is welcome to borrow my copy of Guilty, by Ann Coulter. Let’s be frank: like their Founding Fathers, millions of praying Americans care about social issues. In 2008, even Obama and Biden were defending traditional marriage (or pretending to) and running away from their abortion records for a reason. What’s more, conservatives came out (no pun intended) in force last November and took back the House, in order to bring a little conservative social justice back to Washington. The sad part: Barron should have seen the writing on the wall. Perhaps friendship circles reinforce denial, however. In September, 2010, the marriage issue toppled another RINO with deep pockets for a reason. But elites couldn’t see why New Hampshire’s gay marriage-friendly Bill Binnie finished a distant third in the US Senate GOP Primary. Even his heavy money bags couldn’t save him. Or as the erudite Oxford graduate and President of the National Organization for Marriage, Brian S. Brown said, "A Republican who supports gay marriage has taken a career ending position.” Perhaps “gay marriage” is seen as compassionate-y. “Some establishment Republicans in Washington who spend their time talking to each other at cocktail parties have themselves convinced that it’s ‘cool’ and ‘popular’ to support gay marriage,” Brown explained. “But rank and file Republicans have delivered the message loud and clear: don’t mess with marriage. There is not a single Republican in the nation who has been elected by advocating a pro-gay marriage position. Yet the electoral landscape is littered with the political corpses of Republicans who attempted to do so. Bill Binnie is just the latest example.” Perhaps some Californian Republicans are too liberal and therefore out of touch with Middle America too. I’m no churchgoing Christian, but believe me when I say Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Christians, and Evangelicals have many allies – even more than America’s five gay marriage-loving transgendered Republican voters. As well, we see that in the 31 states where same-sex marriage was put to the people, the people threw it out every time (even in California thanks largely to God-fearing blacks). Thus, many African-Americans don’t associate middle-class gays with victimhood, but moreover, campaigning journalists bent on creating more fatherless families to fill overcrowded jails, don’t need enablers. Perhaps the ladies on The View (singular) and Barron fail to grasp the importance of biology. Or as Stuart Schneiderman who has practiced psychoanalytic psychotherapy (without being brainwashed) states: “To become real, a marriage requires the possibility of conception. It does not require conception. Failure to conceive has never been grounds for nullification. Older, presumably infertile, couples are allowed to marry because if they had performed the same act in the past they might have conceived a child.” Perhaps this social issue is all about liberty: “Not to be too dramatic, but what happens to us when we are forced to accept that reality is what we say it is? What happens to us when we believe that we can change reality by controlling what people say and how they think? All of a sudden, this does not feel quite so harmless.” Who, in all truth, believes that written and unwritten Orwellian speech codes encourage people to question taxpayer-funded social experiments? Outside a toxic politically-correct culture, I mean. Perhaps Barron is a sweet man who adopted the left’s redefinitions of “mandate,” “marriage,” “transgendered,” and “social issue.” Regardless, his actions invite the question: Why can’t a conservative American voter who treasures life and pro-traditional marriage issues expect his or her voice to be heard in Washington? Perhaps too Barron doesn’t see how conservatism is good for children. Even when rich same-sex male couples use a woman to breed they’re robbing an innocent baby of mother-and-child bonding experiences, not to mention breast milk (or important psychobiological benefits). So is this the kind of union that needs to be (a) blessed and/or (b) ignored? Perhaps I should also send Barron a copy of Godless, by Coulter. In the end, though, it’s hard to see the freedom in all of this. B.P. Terpstra is an Australian writer and blogger. His works can be found on The Daily Caller (Washington D.C.), NewsReal Blog (Los Angeles), Quadrant (Sydney), and On Line Opinion (Brisbane).

political

pjmedia.com

2017-11-27

https://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2014/4/10/a-criminal-organization-masquerading-as-oh-you-know-the-rest/2/

A Criminal Organization Masquerading As... Oh, You Know the Rest

Taking the Fifth, contemptuously A House committee voted Wednesday to formally ask the Justice Department to consider criminal prosecution against ex-IRS official Lois Lerner, the figure at the center of the political targeting scandal. The House Ways and Means Committee voted 23-14 to send the criminal referral, which accused her of "extreme bias." The vote marked an escalation in Republicans' push to confront Lerner over her role in the agency's controversial practice of singling out conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status for extra scrutiny. "If we don't stand up for the right of the American people, who else will?" committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., said after the vote. You can find the text of the letter sent to Attorney General Eric Holder here. A few days ago, the Washington Post laid out the issues behind today's contempt vote: The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Thursday plans to vote on the resolution below to hold former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify before the panel. Lerner, who headed an IRS division that reviews tax-exemption applications, has twice invoked her Fifth Amendment right when asked to testify about the agency’s targeting of certain nonprofit advocacy groups for extra scrutiny based on their names and policy positions. The outcome of the upcoming contempt vote is all but assured for the Republican-controlled committee, which already determined in a party-line vote last year that Lerner waived her right not to testify by declaring innocence before declining to answer questions at a June 2013 hearing. And looky here! The same Honorable Gentleman is trying to cover for Ms. Lerner -- you know, the Lois Lerner who was apparently angling for a job with Obama's very own private army, Organizing for Action -- with this particularly pathetic defense: The panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), has argued that Republicans cannot legally pursue contempt charges against the former IRS official because they did not explicitly overrule her Fifth Amendment assertion or clearly direct her to answer the committee’s questions. Yeah, right. Former White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray explains over at National Review Online why a contempt citation for Ms. Lerner is so richly deserved: Precisely because of the crucial role that nonprofit organizations play in American society, the IRS’s partisan abuse of power, singling out conservative tea-party organizations for particularly negative treatment, is a public scandal. According to the public record, Ms. Lerner played a central role in perpetrating that scandal. From her IRS perch, she instructed colleagues that tea-party groups’ nonprofit applications were “a very dangerous matter,” and directed that such groups receive serious scrutiny. And she took the “tea party” label to be a “pejorative” — Samuel Adams and the other original Sons of Liberty notwithstanding. The House Oversight Committee originally invited Ms. Lerner to testify in May 2013. She agreed to appear before the committee, but she also stated through counsel that she would invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The committee then subpoenaed her, to force her to testify as to what she knew and did in the IRS scandal. But again she refused to testify. When Ms. Lerner appeared before the committee on May 22, 2013, she swore to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” and she voluntarily made an opening statement, but then she refused to answer the committee’s questions. The committee’s chairman, Representative Darrell Issa, put the hearing into recess and excused Ms. Lerner, subject to being recalled before the committee. The next month, the committee discussed Ms. Lerner’s refusal to testify, and then approved a resolution finding that Ms. Lerner’s voluntary opening statement constituted a waiver of her Fifth Amendment privilege against the committee’s questions. In February 2014, the committee called for her to return for the reconvened proceedings. Chairman Issa reminded her that if she refused yet again to testify, after the committee already had found her to have waived her Fifth Amendment privilege, then the committee could recommend that she be held in contempt. And she will be. The Lerner case is the Democrats' worst nightmare, revealing the depth and breadth of their politicization of the federal bureaucracy (thanks to the "civil service," a wholly owned subsidiary of the party) and offering long-suffering Americans a real chance at the reform or even the outright abolition of everyone's least favorite and most intrusive federal agency -- given even more power under the ongoing disaster of Obamacare. You know, the one that openly agitates on behalf of the current administration -- Even as the IRS faces growing heat over Lois G. Lerner and the tea party targeting scandal, a government watchdog said Wednesday it’s pursuing cases against three other tax agency employees and offices suspected of illegal political activity in support of President Obama and fellow Democrats. In one case the Office of Special Counsel, which investigates federal employees who conduct politics on government time, said it was “commonplace” in a Dallas IRS office for employees to have pro-Obama screensavers on their computers, and to have campaign-style buttons and stickers at their office. In another case, a worker at the tax agency’s customer help line urged taxpayers “to re-elect President Obama in 2012 by repeatedly reciting a chant based on the spelling of his last name,” the Office of Special Counsel said in a statement. OSC said it is seeking “significant disciplinary action” against that employee. Another IRS employee in Kentucky has agreed to serve a 14-day suspension for blasting Republicans in a conversation with a taxpayer. Proving once again that the fish rots from the head down, the Wall Street Journal sums up the importance of the Lerner case here: The most troubling new evidence are documents showing that Ms. Lerner actively corresponded with liberal campaign-finance groups Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center, which had asked the IRS to investigate if conservative groups including Crossroads GPS were violating their tax-exempt status. After personally meeting with the two liberal outfits, Ms. Lerner contacted the director of the Exempt Organizations Examinations Unit in Dallas to ask why Crossroads had not been audited... Ms. Lerner says she did nothing wrong, and this week we met with her attorney, who told us she declined to testify only because the proceedings were bound to be unfair. But as a senior official in a public agency that wields the power to destroy, she had an obligation to explain what happened and why. We'd still like to hear her defense, but when Congress confronts a stonewalling Administration it has little choice but to tell the public what it has learned so voters can reach their own conclusions. The question is: what will the House do when the Justice Department of Eric Holder -- who's already been found in contempt of Congress himself -- refuses to take any action?

bias

patriotpost.us

2017-11-27

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/24991/print

This Gun Can Fire

The Patriot Post ® · This Gun Can Fire I get up disbelieving And I got plenty to say I see what is happening I can’t take it another day Our leaders should be fired Dictating how I should act with myself Hey Obama I really don’t need your help You are a liar You’re starting a revolution with all your talk My guns to fire Even in the day or dark Tyranny is getting clearer Vacations all around the world I check for my freedom I wanna cry for my family and place You are taking us nowhere Turning our country into a disgrace It’s happening out here We all tired of your face You are a liar You’re starting a revolution with all your talk My guns to fire Even in the day or dark You are getting bolder You’re a joke with egg on your face We’ll shake you dictates off our shoulders You’ll discover the joke’s on you We’re on the streets of all towns Ready to fight to see the light You want us all on welfare But not without a fight We are ready for action If you don’t stop trying to rewrite our history We are a nation of freedom Restore all you have took You are a liar, sitting around trying to control us My guns ready to fire Even in the day or dark In the city and country you are tearing freedom apart My guns will fire even in dark. By Anton D Rehling, 4-17-2014

bias

patriotpost.us

2017-11-27

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/42050/print

It's Time for Christians to Go to Jail Over Marriage

The Patriot Post ® · It's Time for Christians to Go to Jail Over Marriage Over two months prior to the Supreme Court of the United States forcing the legalization of a perverse redefinition of marriage on the whole of the country, I declared that when it comes to the foundation of every lasting culture the world over, the oldest institution in the history of humanity, and one of the earliest truths revealed by God, we can NEVER surrender. As Churchill inspires us, we must fight the tyrannical menace that is the modern homosexual agenda, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. We must fight strong to the end, we must fight for the churches, we must fight for the chapels, and we must fight for the children. We shall fight in the media, we shall fight in the legislatures, and we shall fight in the courts. And if necessary, as Dr. Martin Luther King inspires us, we must go to jail. The courts have ruled, thus some may ask, “Why break the law?” As King revealed in his letter from the Birmingham jail, “[T]here are two types of laws: There are just and there are unjust laws.” And we agree with Dr. King, who agreed with Saint Augustine that, “An unjust law is no law at all.” Dr. King also reminds us of the difference: “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.” If a law forcing a nation to accept as normal men having sex with men and women having sex with women is not a violation of natural law, then nothing is. If a law forcing a nation to accept a perverse redefinition of marriage is not a violation of natural law, then nothing is. We should go forth with the same boldness and surety as did Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who, though faced with the fires of Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace, refused to bow down to his golden idol. The biblical account of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego recorded in the book of Daniel are great examples of a faith that run counter to the culture — even the legal code of the culture, and even when it means facing the harshest of consequences. Though such faith is required in many parts of the world today, few Americans have ever had to make life or death decisions because of whom or how they worship. However, as most sentient Americans now well know, as they refuse to bow to the homosexual agenda, some Americans are facing massive fines, the threat of lawsuits, the threat of having their businesses shut down, the loss of their jobs, death threats, and so on. Fines and other financial penalties seem to be the current favorite weapon of those targeting the individuals or businesses who are determined to hold to the biblical view of marriage. In every case of which I’m aware, when facing fines, generous Americans, through various “crowd-funding” efforts, have literally bailed out their like-minded brothers and sisters. It is time for this to stop. I’m not saying that there’s anything immoral about helping someone pay an unjust fine. However, paying these fines, through whatever means, sends the wrong message. What’s more, in many cases it lines the pockets of those who stand behind these immoral laws. I’m a public school teacher in a conservative state (Georgia), in one of the most conservative congressional districts in the country (GA-9). As I’ve said before, I will NEVER affirm homosexual relationships as normal and healthy, and I will continue to take all opportunities to live and tell the truth on marriage and sexuality. Currently, I cannot imagine a scenario where my positions on marriage and sexuality would result in criminal consequences, including a fine. However, how many of us just a few years ago thought the idea of legalized same-sex “marriage” absurd? How many of us were told that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enough to protect states from a forced (and perverse) redefinition of marriage? In fact, barely a decade ago, some conservatives, including the author of DOMA himself — then Georgia Representative Bob Barr — told us that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one women was unnecessary. It’s likely that many of us who now think ourselves safe from the menacing reach of the homosexual agenda will soon find ourselves in the position of the bakers, photographers, florists, and the like, who have been targeted by those seeking revenge upon Americans seen as standing in the way of sexual “progress.” I now go on the record: If fined I will not pay it, and I will allow no one else to pay it for me. In other words, I will go to jail. In the spirit of John Bunyan: I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of the truth. What’s more, I call upon all defenders of the truth on marriage and sexuality to take the same positions. As Dr. King taught us, we must obey God rather than man. And as Dr. King reminds us, “We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal’ and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was ‘illegal.’ It was ‘illegal’ to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws.” In today’s America, there are few things more “antireligious” than same-sex “marriage.” Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of “Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World.” Contact him at [email protected].

bias

patriotpost.us

2017-11-27

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/42139/print

A Pretender Tells the Truth on Pop-Music Prostitutes

The Patriot Post ® · A Pretender Tells the Truth on Pop-Music Prostitutes Editor’s Note: This article was originally written September 13, 2015. What a sad indictment on our culture that a twice-divorced Vaishnava, PETA loving vegetarian rock-and-roller who once tried to convince the drug-addicted lead singer of the Sex Pistols to marry her is now a voice of reason when it comes to the hyper-sexed nature of modern pop music. Chrissie Hynde, the 64-year-old former lead singer of The Pretenders, recently implied that the “bumping and grinding,” underwear-wearing musicians Miley Cyrus, Rihanna, Beyoncé, Katy Perry and the like are nothing more than prostitutes. In accusing such singers of doing “a great deal of damage to women” with their risqué performances, the exact label use by Hynde was “sex worker.” Hynde went so far as to accuse the gyrating hussies of putting women in danger. Hynde declared, “I don’t think sexual assault is a gender issue as such, I think it’s very much it’s all around us now. It’s provoked by this pornography culture, it’s provoked by pop stars who call themselves feminists. Maybe they’re feminists on behalf of prostitutes — but they are no feminists on behalf of music, if they are selling their music by bumping and grinding and wearing their underwear in videos. That’s a kind of feminism — but, you know, you’re a sex worker is what you are.” Hynde’s is exactly right. And as I noted over a year ago, tragically, the “sex worker” and “pornography culture” she describes extends far beyond the realm of today’s pop music. For decades now, our media has been saturated with such smut. In our household, we’ve long referred to these Hollywood sluts as “high-priced harlots.” Whether in TV, motion pictures, music videos, swimsuit magazines, lingerie ads, burger ads, and so on, what else are we supposed to call women who do little more than make money by displaying their flesh? For nearly three generations now, despite, in some cases, the best efforts of their parents, we have had boys grow into men who have seen thousands of images of scantily-clad, seductive-acting women. It is little wonder then that, instead of marriage and family, many young men now seek only “friends with benefits.” As they take notice of what draws the attention of today’s young males, young girls are often duped into emulating the attractive and scantily clad women they see on TV and the internet, and in movies and magazines. Walk through any mall or park during warm weather. You will see girls from pre-pubescent age on up with their bodies barely covered. As my lovely wife noted last year, “Females must begin to take some responsibility by dressing for respect instead of for sex. What we wear says a lot about us, whether we intend it or not. It isn’t fair for us to dress like sluts and expect men to behave themselves like gentlemen. It goes both ways.” It is also little wonder then that we now live in a “hook-up” culture, where women and men both are a means to a selfish sexual end — which has, among other disastrous things, led to over 40% of American children being born out of wedlock. Most of these children are raised without a father. Much of the violent (including rape) and criminal behavior exhibited by boys and young men today is, to a great extent, the sad result of growing up without a father, or at least a father who will teach and model for them how they are supposed to treat women. And instead of teaching and promoting eternal truths on sex, marriage, and the family, whether with abortion, the homosexual agenda, the transgender agenda, pornography, and the like, modern feminists have embraced nearly every sexually deviant perversion known in our culture. As the Apostle Paul put it, they are “God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil.” Chrissie Hynde recently penned Reckless: My Life as A Pretender. “I regret half of this story,” she declares. Hynde has been very candid about her sorrow for past drug and alcohol abuse, her broken relationship with her parents, and her sexual promiscuity. Modern feminists and their apologists are paying little attention. In reviewing Reckless, the Boston Globe’s Mike Shanahan said that “controversial comments about rape and provocative attire” by Hyndes “suggests she may have a ways to go” when it comes to feminism. How duped by feminist lies does one have to be to stand up for the likes of a twerking demon-in-heat-like Miley Cyrus? Make no mistake about it, unless they repent from their hedonistic lifestyle sooner rather than later, and if they manage to live long enough, many of today’s feminists will be sounding like Chrissie Hynde. Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of “Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World.” Contact him at [email protected].

bias

patriotpost.us

2017-11-27

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/42112/print

Get’cha Honey for Nothin’, Get’cha Chips for Free

The Patriot Post ® · Get’cha Honey for Nothin’, Get’cha Chips for Free (I want my, I want my, I want my E-B-T!) Editor’s Note: This article was originally written on August 16, 2015. The quickest and surest way to make things more expensive for most of us is for someone in our government to attempt to make such things “free” for some. As I noted earlier this year, the largest “charity” in the U.S. is government (which, of course, brags about it!). Americans gave a total of approximately $$3.4 billion (about $$2.4 billion from individuals) to private charities in 2013. In the same year, Americans received over $$600 billion from means-tested (recipients required to be below a certain income level) government programs (housing, food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, and the like). When non means-tested programs (Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, and so on) are included, the total is a shocking and staggering $$2 trillion dollars. In case you missed it, for over four consecutive years now, the number of Americans receiving food stamps (transactions are now down with an EBT card) surpassed 45 million. About 20 percent of U.S. children receive food stamps. Thus nearly one-fifth of our future electorate is being conditioned to the idea that it is government’s responsibility to make sure they are fed. Of course, with the current size and role the government plays in our everyday lives, people have come to expect much more than food from their Uncle Sam. And liberals are intent on growing these expectations. Given the life-changing financial decision Michelle and I made 17 years ago, anytime I see a headline containing the phrase “debt free,” my attention is drawn. This is especially the case whenever the headline is a reference to a plan or scheme devised by a liberal. Most liberals’ ideas of “debt free” involves either printing massive amounts of money or heavily taxing those who tend not to vote for democrats (or at least have no lobbyist to create tax loopholes). As her campaign falters, Hillary Clinton recently announced her plan to do more of what liberals do best: give away other people’s money. In an effort to politically capitalize on the massive $$1.2 trillion in student loan debt that is held by tens-of-millions of Americans, Clinton proposed “to make public colleges debt-free for students, to cut interest rates for people struggling with debt from loans taken out to pay for college, and to expand some existing aid programs to cover more people.” Her campaign says that the new program would cost $$350 billion over ten years, which means that it will probably cost at least twice that much. Liberals are almost as bad at predicting the future costs of federal programs as they are at climate change predictions. (The interesting thing to ponder is which bad prediction will end up costing us more.) Of course, as is almost always the case with these things, Clinton’s plan will not make college less expensive, but more so. Clinton isn’t alone in her plan to further expand the role of the federal government in education. According to Alexis Simindinger, writing in Real Clear Politics, “Affordable, debt-free college is now an economic policy plank for all the Democratic presidential candidates, who believe it resonates across political parties, across economic strata, and with young people as well as with their parents and grandparents.” In other words, liberals have examined the political landscape and found the next new way — much to Benjamin Franklin’s dismay — to give the electorate the opportunity to vote themselves money. And “affordable?!” Social Security, the oldest, and arguably the most popular federal social welfare program, is, according to Andrew Briggs of the American Enterprise Institute, “the Titanic headed for the iceberg.” And there is virtually no political will in Washington, D.C. to do anything about it. In 2014 Medicare — which is as popular as Social Security — cost the U.S. government $$600 billion, which was just short of defense spending. This spending was nearly double Medicare’s receipts ($$342 billion) for 2014. Put another way, Medicare brings in about 11% of federal tax revenue, while amounting to nearly 17% of federal spending. As John Graham of the National Center for Policy Analysis implies, “Medicare devours the federal government.” In other words, with over $$18 trillion in total federal debt, and an annual federal budget deficit of nearly $$500 billion, virtually no Big Government social program is “affordable.” Of course, this includes Obamacare. In spite of the oft-parroted notion that Obamacare is “working,” the law is much more expensive than promised ($$2 trillion instead of $$900 billion — Democrats will just make this up out of petty cash), fewer people are covered than promised, premiums are rising faster than promised (“23 percent in Illinois, 25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee and 54 percent in Minnesota), fewer doctors are available than promised ("42 percent fewer oncology and cardiology specialists; 32 percent fewer mental health and primary care providers; and 24 percent fewer hospitals”), and so on. As is often the case with these programs, Obamacare was sold on a mountain of lies. Because of the desire of many Americans to receive “free” stuff from the government, and because of the refusal of far too many Americans to recognize that such things are never free, we are now saddled with another massive government program that we may never be rid of. The idea that Americans are getting things “free” from the government may be the lie of the century. A billboard near my home illustrates well this lie: According to its website, “Peach State provides all of the medical services covered by Medicaid and PeachCare for Kids.” In other words, Peach State is government healthcare in Georgia. PeachCare is Georgia’s version of CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program). As a result of the failed efforts of “Hillarycare,” but in order to get at least some expansion of the role of government in healthcare, SCHIP (as it was formerly known) was created in 1997 as a shared federal-state health insurance program for children and pregnant mothers in families whose incomes were too high for Medicaid. Take note of the advertisement of “Free Dental & Vision Coverage” on the billboard. Such deception is replete when it comes to these Big Government programs. To quote Mattie Ross from True Grit, “You must pay for everything in this world in one way or another. There is nothing free except the grace of God.” If only more Americans were as eager for God’s grace as they were for Obama’s stash. Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of “Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World.” Contact him at [email protected].

bias

patriotpost.us

2017-11-27

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/42081/print

Untermenschen: The Language of Death

The Patriot Post ® · Untermenschen: The Language of Death Following the defeat of Germany and Japan in World War II, the first trial held at Nuremburg was for those who were accused of medical atrocities. Twenty-three individuals, 20 of whom were medical doctors, were tried for a wide variety of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Prisoners of the Nazis were subjected to, among other horrible things, blood experiments, sterilization, castration, mastectomies, starvation, amputations, electroshock, and so on. Seeking cures for a variety of diseases, some prisoners (including children) were purposefully infected with typhus, hepatitis, Yellow Fever, smallpox, malaria, and the like. In order to understand and improve conditions for German soldiers, prisoners of the Nazis were also subjected to high-altitude and hypothermia experiments. Doctors committed to the Nazi cause were also instrumental in Hitler’s euthanasia and Final Solution programs. As the principal prosecutor Telford Taylor said in his opening statement at Nuremburg, “The defendants in this case are charged with murders, tortures and other atrocities committed in the name of medical science. The victims of these crimes are numbered in the hundreds of thousands. A handful only are still alive; a few of the survivors will appear in this courtroom. But most of these miserable victims were slaughtered outright or died in the course of the tortures to which they were subjected … To their murderers, these wretched people were not individuals at all. They came in wholesale lots and were treated worse than animals.” According to author Dr. David Livingstone Smith, such dehumanization played a significant role in the “single most destructive event in human history: the Second World War.” Smith is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of New England, co-founder and director of the New England Institute for Cognitive Science and Evolutionary Studies, and the author of Less Than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others. According to NPR, in his book, Smith “argues that it’s important to define and describe dehumanization, because it’s what opens the door for cruelty and genocide.” Before going any further, let me say that from the little I know of Dr. Smith and his work, it is fair to assume that our worldviews are vastly different. This paragraph from NPR justifies my conclusion: “Human beings have long conceived of the universe as a hierarchy of value, says Smith, with God at the top and inert matter at the bottom, and everything else in between. That model of the universe ‘doesn’t make scientific sense,’ says Smith, but ‘nonetheless, for some reason, we continue to conceive of the universe in that fashion, and we relegate nonhuman creatures to a lower position’ on the scale.” Of course, from the Christian perspective, having God at the top of the hierarchy of the universe is the only worldview — or “model of the universe” — that makes any sense. Nevertheless, Smith’s conclusions on humanity and genocide are revealing. In Less Than Human, Dr. Smith asks, “What is it that enables one group of human beings to treat another group as though they were subhuman creatures?” According to Dr. Smith, the answer isn’t difficult to come by. He concludes, “Thinking sets the agenda for action, and thinking of humans as less than human paves the way for atrocity. The Nazis were explicit about the status of their victims. They were Untermenschen — subhumans — and as such were excluded from the system of moral rights and obligations that bind humankind together. It’s wrong to kill a person, but permissible to exterminate a rat. To the Nazis, all the Jews, Gypsies and others were rats: dangerous, disease-carrying rats.” The Germans were not the only dehumanizing butchers of World War II. By the time the Soviets were drawn into the war, Stalin’s government was already quite adept at dehumanization and mass atrocities. In the 1930s, Stalin killed millions of his own citizenry. In turn, upon invading the Soviet Union, the German army killed over 20 million Soviets, about half of them civilians. In retaliation, and in order to foment hatred towards the Germans, Soviet propagandists provided soldiers of the Red Army with pamphlets describing the Germans as “two-legged animals who have mastered the technique of war” — “ersatz (inferior) men” — who needed to be annihilated. “The Germans are not human beings,” the pamphlets read. In 2010, in Forbes Magazine, Dr. Smith also describes the Japanese brutality of World War II. “For a period of six weeks from December 1937 to January 1938, Japanese soldiers slaughtered, mutilated, raped and tortured thousands of Chinese civilians. Honda Katsuichi’s harrowing book The Nanjing Massacre: A Japanese Journalist Confronts Japan’s National Shame describes many of the details of what happened. Katsuichi lets the perpetrators speak for themselves, and their accounts of the atrocities are so horrific that they are difficult to read.” A Japanese veteran of World War II interviewed for Katsuichi’s book explained how such cruelty was possible. “We called the Chinese ‘chancorro’ that meant below human, like bugs or animals. The Chinese didn’t belong to the human race. That was the way we looked at it…If I’d thought of them as human beings I couldn’t have done it,” he observed, “But I thought of them as animals or below human beings.” “This is called dehumanization,” Dr. Smith again concludes. “We dehumanize our fellow human beings when we convince ourselves (or allow ourselves to be convinced) that they are less than human and come to believe that, although these people appear to be human beings like us, this is merely a façade. Beneath the surface they are really subhuman creatures, fit to be hunted down and destroyed. The immense destructive power of dehumanization lies in the fact that it excludes its victims from the universe of moral obligation, so killing them is of no greater consequence than swatting a mosquito, or poisoning a rat.” Smith’s conclusions are quite beneficial as we witness modern liberals’ attempts to defend the killing of children in the womb, along with the harvesting of the baby’s organs, by Planned Parenthood. To justify the slaughter of tens of millions of children in the womb, abortion apologists have regularly employed the de-humanizing language described by Dr. Smith. For decades now, liberalism has excluded unborn babies “from the universe of moral obligation.” This was been on particular display in last year’s scandal involving Planned Parenthood (PP). “These are not ‘baby parts,’” insisted Jen Gunter. She prefers that the “tissue specimen” be referred to as “products of conception.” The term “baby” doesn’t apply until birth, Gunter declares. She concludes, “Calling the tissue ‘baby parts’ is a calculated attempt to anthropomorphize [humanize — notice that she can’t even bring herself to use the word "human”] an embryo or fetus.“ Such language is replete within liberal circles when it comes to killing children in the womb. "The right to choose,” is a refrain that’s been around for decades. The recent videos that shed more light onto what PP really does, according to Hillary Clinton, is “really an attack against a woman’s right to choose.” Tens of millions of Americans have been convinced (or allowed themselves to be convinced) that a child in the womb is “less than human.” As science and technology advance, the deception about this “choice” is getting more difficult for liberals. This is due not only to pro-life activism and ultrasounds, but also the internet. For those who are willing to look for it, the truth about the humanity of life in the womb is available now more than it has ever been. Nevertheless, the will to do whatever one wants sexually without the consequences is a powerful force, and those devoted to death are working harder than ever to maintain their lies. In defense of the largest abortion provider in the U.S., liberals regularly extol PP. They are lauded as “awesome” and regularly promoted as merely “a women’s health care provider” who has “extremely high standards.” President Obama himself has thanked PP for its work, and even offered it a “God bless you.” In other words, in the face of well over 50 million deaths in American wombs since 1973, in order to maintain the façade of abortion as simply a “choice,” liberals have utilized the same language and propaganda as the most prolific murderers in the history of humanity. Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of “Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World.” Contact him at [email protected].

bias

patriotpost.us

2017-11-27

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/43000/print

Will Further Perversions of Title IX Ruin Women's Athletics?

The Patriot Post ® · Will Further Perversions of Title IX Ruin Women's Athletics? Quick (no web searching!), who was the 2016 NCAA Division I women’s basketball champion? (Don’t tell me that your office didn’t do a women’s NCAA tournament bracket contest!) Okay, given that they’ve (UConn) won it four times in-a-row, that’s too easy. Let’s try again: Who was the last (2015) WNBA champion? (Hint: They’ve won it four of the last five seasons.) Don’t feel bad, I didn’t know either, and twice in their recent five-year championship run they defeated the team from my home state in the championship series. Even better: Can you name five WNBA teams? How about five WNBA players? Last year, the most watched women’s sporting event of all-time occurred. What was it? Can you name the teams or five players (a hint!) who competed? Neither could I. Speaking of most-watched sporting events, of the 50 most-watched sporting events of 2015, 43 of them were NFL games. Only one was a female sporting event (the answer to the third question in the previous paragraph: last year’s Women’s World Cup final). I know, including the NFL just isn’t fair. Nevertheless, of the 50 most-watched non-NFL sporting events of 2015, only two were women’s events. Even non-humans outperform women’s sports in viewership — three of the 2015 non-NFL top 50 were horse racing events. In spite of such glaring consumer-based evidence — and as fast as Bernie Sanders can dodge a question on Venezuela and socialism — liberals across the U.S. continue to insist that we must have “equality” when it comes to sports in America. When it comes to college and high school athletics, the infamous Title IX is the favorite instrument of liberals with which to discriminate in order to eliminate “discrimination.” Enacted in 1972, Title IX benignly declares, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” In the initial hearings prior to the law being passed, very little mention was made of athletics. At that time, most of the focus was on the hiring and employment practices of federally funded educational institutions — especially colleges and universities. Of course Title IX soon devolved into a weapon used to impose radical feminist ideology upon public colleges and universities. This is especially the case with college athletics. In the 44-year history of Title IX, hundreds of men’s college athletic programs have been killed, with tens of thousands of male athletes losing the opportunity to compete at the collegiate level. In 1981 there were 146 Division I men’s wrestling programs. Today, only about half of that number (77) exists. According to the Government Accountability Office, from 1981 to 1999 a total of 171 college wrestling programs (all divisions) were eliminated. Since 1980, about 80 percent of Division I men’s gymnastics teams have been lost (from nearly 80 teams down to only 15). On the other hand, colleges and universities are literally inventing opportunities for female athletes. For example, with 89 participants — which is 40 percent larger than the average NCAA Division I rowing program — the women’s rowing team at the University of Iowa is the second largest athletic program (behind football). According to a recent article in The Gazette, in order to create more opportunities for college females to participate in athletics, rowing teams across the U.S. “are unique in that they have a novice division for freshmen, most of whom have never rowed.” This is unsurprising, as very few high schools in the U.S. — and none in Iowa — offer girls rowing. Thus, in order to fill Title IX quotas, schools are reduced to “recruiting” female rowers from their own campuses. Women’s college rowing teams scour their campuses in search of women who are “tall and athletic.” Instead of inflated rosters on existing sports teams, some women’s sports advocates are calling for new sports opportunities for females such as lacrosse or ice hockey. Yet scant numbers of high schools (less than 6% — about 2,200 teams out of more than 37,000 high schools) across the U.S. offer girl’s lacrosse. Even fewer offer ice hockey. And virtually none of these college women’s teams produce revenues that can support their budgets. In the 2014-2015 season, the University of Iowa women’s rowing team’s net revenue was less than one-tenth of its operating budget. Almost every women’s college athletics program in America loses money. (Consistently, at the collegiate level, only football and men’s basketball make money.) And this is true of women’s professional sports teams as well. On the heels of winning the 1999 World Cup and the gold medal at the 2000 Olympics, incorrectly sensing a growing interest in women’s soccer, American investors created the Women’s United Soccer Association. This professional women’s soccer league lasted only three seasons and lost over $$100 million dollars. In 2009 the Women’s Professional Soccer league began play. It too lasted only three seasons. The most “successful” American professional women’s sports league is the WNBA. Yet it was 14 seasons before a single WNBA team actually made money. It’s nearly impossible to find the hard figures — almost certainly because there is virtually no one in the mainstream sports media who wishes to acknowledge the truth — but the best I can tell, in nearly 20 years of operation, the WNBA as a whole has yet to turn a profit. (It’s only lasted as long as it has because it’s been financially propped up by the NBA.) Tellingly, as of 2014, over 50 NBA players made more money than every WNBA player combined. There will never be “gender equality” when it comes to athletics, because human genders are not — and will never be — equal. Men are bigger, faster, and stronger than women. And “bigger, faster, and stronger” makes for more exciting and interesting sports. What’s more, as most anyone not devoted to a liberal worldview who’s observed human beings for at least 15 minutes was already aware, men are naturally more physically aggressive than are women. As Psychology Today points out: The fact that males are more aggressive and more violent is reflected by their anatomy itself; in many animals species they are heavier, more muscular, better armed with means of attack and defense. In humans, for example, the arms of men are, on average, 75 percent more muscular than those of women; and the top of a male body is 90 percent stronger that the top of a female body [Bohannon, 1997; Abe et al., 2003, apud Goetz, 2010, p. 16]. Also, men are taller, they have denser and heavier bones, their jaw is more massive, their reaction time is shorter, their visual acuity is better, their muscle/fat ratio is greater, their heart is bulkier, their percentage of hemoglobin is higher, their skin is thicker, their lungs bigger, their resistance to dehydration is higher etc. In other words, from all points of view, men are more suited for battle than women, and these skills are native. And as Ann Coulter noted over a decade ago, “Competitive sports are ritualized forms of fighting, and boys like to fight.” In other words, sports — especially those involving heavy contact — is a form of battle, and in spite of what the Obama administration would have us believe, men are much more suited for battle than are women. No amount of legislation or other forms of legal wrangling is going to change these facts. But as we all know, liberalism has never let facts get in the way of their agenda, and with new efforts derived from an even more perverse interpretation of Title IX, liberals may have finally found a way to make women’s sports more interesting: let men compete as women. Given the moral depths to which our culture has sunk on sex and sexuality, it’s very easy these days to find “transgender” advocates touting Title IX as giving students wide-ranging “rights” to live a lie. Among many other crazy things, on “transgender and gender non-conforming students,” The National Center for Transgender Equality declares: You have the right to equal educational opportunities regardless of your gender, including your gender identity or expression, or your race, nationality, or disability. This includes not being punished or excluded from school activities or events [read: sports] because you are transgender or gender non-conforming. You have the right to use restrooms, locker rooms, and other facilities that are consistent with your gender identity, and can’t be forced to use separate facilities. As early as five years ago the NCAA “Office of Inclusion” produced a document that, among many other crazy things, recommended allowing humans who were born male to compete as females. They piously and ignorantly declare that assumptions commonly made about humans born male who wish to pretend they are female “are not well founded.” Ignoring sound science and common sense, the June 2016 edition of the “science” magazine Cosmos concludes that, “It’s only a matter of time before trans female athletes compete in the Olympics,” and “they will not have an edge over the rest of the field.” The state of Alaska is already allowing boys to compete against girls. Just days ago, KTUU in Anchorage reported that Nattaphon Wangyot — who was born male but identifies as a female — was allowed to represent Haines High School in the women’s 3A 200-meter race at the state track meet. I wonder what poor girl was kept out of the meet as the result of such blatant discrimination. Wangyot also played volleyball and basketball, presumably on the girl’s teams. I wonder what poor girls lost playing time as the result of having a boy participate on their team. Given that we now live in a culture that has legally redefined the oldest institution in the history of humanity, whether we’re talking about locker rooms or restrooms, it should come as little surprise that we are now debating what is a male and what is a female. However, no one seems to be pointing out that this type of perverse thinking ONLY hurts (real) female athletes. If mental illness and hormone therapy were really all that’s necessary to level the playing field, why are no “transgender males” (females pretending to be men) beating (real) men, at any type of elite level, in any sport? In the combined 276-year history of MLB, the NFL, and the NBA, no human being born a female has ever been a regular member of any of those leagues. Real women better rise up and notice what is happening. If this is the path the homosexual agenda (which includes the transgender apologists) now wants to take, Title IX (ironically) is now being used to render women athletics a farce. Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of “Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World.” Contact him at [email protected].

bias

patriotpost.us

2017-11-27

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/42737/print

A (Not So) Brief History of the Gun

The Patriot Post ® · A (Not So) Brief History of the Gun I love guns. I grew up with them. My father (an avid and excellent hunter) owned (and still owns) many. One of my most memorable gifts as a young man was a single-shot 410 shotgun. Before I was old enough to own a real gun, my friends and I were quite skilled in using all sorts of scrap wood, duct tape, nails, and so on to manufacture the most magnificent replicas. Back then, if I was not playing with some sort of ball, I was in some sort of battle. As debates about guns and gun rights in America rage (and as some states are on the threshold of a near total ban on guns), truly to understand the gun, one needs to look at its history. The story of the gun is a fascinating and riveting look not only at history, but science, business, politics, justice, and morality as well. Throw in a great deal of ingenuity, a good deal of heroism, and a small dose of romance, and the story of the gun is the world’s greatest tale of human invention. The gun’s story begins with the invention (or discovery) of gunpowder. Gunpowder most likely was invented just prior to 1000 A.D. It became rather prominent around the turn of the twelfth century. Theories abound about who actually invented gunpowder, but no one really knows. According to noted historian Ian Hogg, “The first positive statement relating to gunpowder appears in a document written in 1242 by Roger Bacon entitled On the Miraculous Power of Art and Nature.” Hogg also notes that, since, during that period, “fiery compositions” were considered to be an element of the “Black Arts,” Bacon, a Franciscan friar, concealed his formula in an anagram (which remained unsolved for over 600 years). Early guns were really cannons. The first illustration of a cannon appears in a 1326 work entitled On the Duties of Kings prepared for King Edward III of England. These early cannons fired large stone balls — sometimes weighing up to 200 pounds. However, such stones were still lighter than iron shot of a similar diameter, and due to the relative weakness of early gunpowder, were safer to use. Such cannons were massive and thus, difficult to move. Smaller calibers that were more mobile were much desired. This led to the development of the “hand-gonne.” These were simply miniature iron or bronze cannon barrels attached to the end of a lengthy wooden staff. (A 1475 German manuscript depicts such a device.) By the 15th century, “arms of fire” with a lock, stock, and a barrel — the same basic look we have today — became somewhat common. The first weapon that could be carried, loaded, and discharged by a single man became known as the matchlock. This was a muzzle-loading gun that was discharged when a hand-lit match was lowered into the flash pan. The term “lock” most likely originated from the fact that the gun-lock operated in a similar fashion to the locking mechanisms of the day. American Pilgrims were very familiar with this gun. However, these guns were not very accurate or reliable. They could be quite dangerous to use (as the burning wick necessary to ignite the powder in the flash pan was often in close proximity to the stores of powder on the user), and were virtually useless in wet weather. The matchlock also was not very useful for hunting, as the burning wick alerted most every type of game. A new lock design for igniting the powder was needed. Thus, around 1500 A.D. the world was introduced to the wheel lock. The wheel lock made use of a centuries-old process for lighting fires: striking stone against steel and catching the sparks. No longer was a cumbersome and dangerous burning cord necessary for discharging a gun. For the first time, a firearm could now be carried loaded, primed, and ready to fire. Again, the actual inventor is unknown, but Leonardo da Vinci had one of the earliest drawings of a wheel lock design. The wheel lock also led to another advancement in firearms: the pistol. For the first time, a weapon could now be carried concealed. It was at this point that many of the first laws against carrying firearms came into being. Like the matchlock, the wheel lock had its short-comings. If the wrench necessary to wind the wheel was lost, the weapon was rendered useless. Also, with over 50 individual parts, the wheel lock was of a complicated and intricate design. This made the gun very expensive to own and difficult and expensive to maintain. Efforts toward a simpler, less expensive, and more reliable gun led to the next significant step in firearms: the flintlock. The first flintlock design was by the Frenchman Marin le Bourgeoys around 1615. The flintlock was a more simple design and most of the moving parts were inside the gun. This made it much more weather-proof than its predecessors. For over 200 years, the flintlock was the standard firearm of European armies. It was used in the greatest battles of the 18th century and helped determine many of the rulers of Europe, and helped set the borders of many European nations. The flintlock brought to an end the armor-wearing knight and also saw the end of the Napoleonic wars. The flintlock was also the customary firearm of the young United States and was instrumental in our battle for independence. In fact, to battle lawlessness, Indians, and to put food on the table, the gun was the most essential and prized tool in early America. As soon as they were old enough properly to hold and fire a flintlock, many young American boys were expected to help feed their families. Thus, generations of boys growing up and using guns from a young age played no small part in America winning her Independence. “The Americans [are] the best marksmen in the world,” lamented a minister of the Church of England in 1775. The first original American contribution to firearms was the Kentucky rifle (which was made in Pennsylvania). This gun was superior to most every European contemporary. It was longer, lighter, and used a smaller caliber than other muzzle-loading guns at the time. Most importantly, as the name indicates, the Kentucky gun was “rifled.” This process, which involves cutting helical grooves inside the gun barrel, greatly increased accuracy. A bullet fired from a rifled gun spins and thus helps stabilize any bullet imperfections (which were usually significant in the 18th century) that otherwise would distort flight (think bow-and-arrow vs. slingshot). In spite of all this, most American Revolutionaries still carried smooth-bore muskets. Kentucky rifles did take longer to load than smooth-bore muskets, and often the volume of fire was/is more important than accuracy. General George Washington did make significant use of American marksmen armed with the Kentucky rifle. These riflemen played major roles (as in picking off British officers) in such conflicts as the Battle of Saratoga (see Morgan’s Riflemen). The birth of a new nation meant the need for a national armory. In 1777, General Washington settled on a strategic location in Springfield, Massachusetts, as the setting for the armory. In addition to being important for our national defense, the Springfield Armory led the world in technological advancements that would change manufacturing forever. The manufacture of firearms at Springfield helped usher in the age of mass production. An ingenious inventor named Thomas Blanchard, who worked for the Springfield Armory for five years, created a special lathe for the production of wooden gun stocks. Such a lathe allowed for the easy manufacture of objects of irregular shape. This led, for example, to the easy mass production of shoes. Many other technical industries — such as the typewriter, sewing machine, and the bicycle — were also born out of the gun industry. Factories that produced such products were often located near firearm manufacturers, as the firearms industry possessed the most skilled craftsman necessary for creating the complicated parts for such machines. The Springfield Armory also introduced contemporary business practices to manufacturing. Concepts such as hourly wages, and cost accounting practices became customary at Springfield and were important steps in modernizing manufacturing. The next step in firearms development came from a minister. Due to his severe frustration with the delay between trigger pull and gunfire (which too often allowed for the escape of his prized target: wild ducks) from his flintlock, the Reverend Alexander Forsyth invented the percussion cap. Inside the cap is a small amount of impact sensitive explosive (like fulminate of mercury). Thus, muzzle-loading guns now did not have to rely on exposed priming powder to fire, were quicker to fire, and were almost completely weather-proof. However, gun users were still plagued by a centuries old problem: they were limited to a single shot before reloading. Enter Samuel Colt. Making use of the percussion cap, in 1836 Colt (with the aid of a mechanic, John Pearson) perfected and patented a revolving handgun. Although little of Colt’s design was original, he ingeniously brought together existing features of previous guns and fashioned them into a mechanically elegant and reliable revolver. Along with being an inventor, Colt was a shrewd and capable businessman. His genius was not only in his gun design, but in the techniques used to manufacture it. His guns were made using interchangeable parts (made by machine and assembled by hand). In 1847, with an order of 1,000 pistols from the U.S. Army, and no factory to build them, Colt looked to noted gun-maker Eli Whitney (often called “the father of mass production”) to help fill the order. It was the production of guns, and men such as Whitney and Colt, that led the way in the pioneering and perfection of the assembly line. When Colt’s American patent expired in 1857 there were many who stood ready to take the next step in firearms. None more so than a pair of men who had spent much of their time perfecting ammunition: Horace Smith and Daniel Wesson. In 1856, just in time to take advantage of Colt’s expiring patent, their partnership produced the world’s first revolver that fired a fully self-contained cartridge. This cartridge was a “rimfire” variety that Smith and Wesson patented in 1854. As handguns were progressing, long arms were beginning to catch up. This is where another American icon enters our history: a wealthy shirt maker named Oliver Winchester. Winchester took over a fledgling arms company in 1855 and in 1857 hired a gunsmith named Tyler Henry to turn it around. By 1860, Henry had created a breech-loading lever-action repeating rifle (firing 16 rounds). The Henry Repeating Rifle was a tremendously popular, useful, and reliable gun. It was this weapon that began to make the single-shot muzzle-loading rifle obsolete. In 1866, Winchester improved on the Henry rifle and produced a model named after himself. The Winchester model 1866 fired 18 rounds, had a wooden forearm to make it less hot to handle, and contained the familiar side-loading port. It was in 1873 that the two most legendary guns of the Old West were produced — the Winchester model 1873 (which was a larger caliber than the 1866 model) and the Colt model 1873, otherwise known as “The Peacemaker.” Carrying on with the savvy business sense of its founder, the Colt Company built this model to hold the exact same ammunition as the Winchester model 1873. Integral in the success of Winchester Arms was the greatest gunsmith in the history of America (and maybe the world): John Browning. Over a 19 year relationship Winchester manufactured 44 firearms designed and built by Browning. A devout Mormon, Browning held 128 gun patents and sold designs not only to Winchester, but also Colt, Remington, Savage, and Fabrique Nationale. Browning had his hand in almost every type of firearm design. Everything from single-shots and lever-actions to rifles and shotguns bears the influence of John Browning. Browning’s guns, along with those by Colt, Winchester, et al put more fire-power in the hands of an individual than ever before. However, they paled in comparison to what was next. With virtually every step in gun advancement, there were many attempts toward the same goal. This was no different for the “machine gun.” Certainly the most famous of the early versions of the machine gun was the Gatling Gun. Mounted on a central axis with six rotating barrels, the Gatling Gun was fired by hand turning a rotating crank mounted on the side. Although not a true automatic, the Gatling could achieve several hundred rounds per minute. The most successful and famous of the early fully automatic guns was the Maxim gun. Invented by an American-born Brit, Sir Hiram Stevens Maxim, this gun was introduced in 1884. The maxim was completely automatic in the sense that it was “self-powered.” In other words, using the tremendous amount of energy that was released when the gun was fired, it was now unnecessary for a discharged cartridge to be manually ejected and the next cartridge to be manually loaded. With the Maxim gun, this action continues with a single trigger pull. Maxim’s gun could fire 10 rounds per second. Maxim spent several years studying how to put the recoil energy of a gun to good use. He patented virtually every possible way of automatically operating a gun. So much so that, as Ian Hogg put it, “he could have probably quoted [only] one of his many patents and stifled machine gun development for the next 21 years, since almost every successful machine gun design can be foreseen in a Maxim patent.” Men like Browning, Baron Von Odkolek, John Thompson, Mikhail Kalashnikov, and several others built off of Maxim’s success, and machine guns became smaller and lighter. Browning is perhaps most famous for his automatic designs. By the 1890’s Browning had designs that were vastly superior to the Gatling guns used by the U.S. military at the time. This brings us into the 20th century where fully automatic weapons that could be carried and operated by a single man were common place and necessary for any successful army. When the U.S. entered WWI our soldiers were armed with rifles that were significantly inferior to those of our enemies and allies. In 1918 Browning equipped the U.S. military with his .30 caliber Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR). Though it was highly successful, the BAR did not become standard issue for the U.S. military until 1938. Towards the end of WWI, with the introduction of the tank, to serve as an anti-tank weapon, Browning upgraded his .30 caliber design to a .50 caliber. This machine gun was officially designated as the Browning M2, but was affectionately referred to as “Ma Deuce.” Though improving tank armor made it ineffective as an anti-tank weapon, the M2 became standard equipment for many U.S. vehicles, including planes and ships. Still in use today, and with nearly 100 years of service, the M2 is the longest serving fully automatic weapon in the U.S. arsenal. From before the founding of this great nation, firearms have been essential to the preservation of life, the enforcement of law and justice, and the establishment and protection of liberty. Our Founding Fathers understood well how important the gun was to the founding and maintaining of liberty in the U.S. Thus, they gave us: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…” And just what is the “militia?” No less than the co-author of the 2nd Amendment, George Mason, tells us: “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people … To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” Even Jesus Christ Himself understood the significance of an armed man. In Luke He states, “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe.” What’s more, the technology that drove the progression of firearms and the improved manufacturing and business practices adopted at gun factories propelled the U.S. into the Industrial Age. America owes much to the gun. Americans, whether they are gun owners or not, whether they love them or despise them, would be wise to remember all that the gun has meant to this nation and hope and pray that guns remain in the hands of its citizens. Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of “Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World.” Contact him at [email protected].

political

pjmedia.com

2017-11-27

https://pjmedia.com/spengler/2014/10/7/why-are-the-bushies-attacking-ted-cruz/4/

Why Are the Bushies Attacking Ted Cruz?

Does anyone remember the foreign policy debate during the 2012 presidential election? Mitt Romney sat through it like a punching bag, terrified to defend the disastrous Bush record on foreign policy. Foreign policy alone did not lose the election for Romney, to be sure (his silver-spoon arrogance reflected in the 47% gaffe probably sank him). Nonetheless, the Marley's Ghost syndrome weighed on Republican fortunes in 2012. It's time to remove the chain. With it, though, will perish foundation funding, donor grants, think-tank jobs, television gigs, editorial positions and other perks that the leftovers of the last Republican administration still enjoy. No doubt Sen. Cruz will take a lot more incoming fire. He has one advantage over his neo-con critics, though: He is talking sense, and they are defending the indefensible. As a matter of record, I argued in this space that Sen. Cruz showed tactical brilliance in the 2013 budget standoff, long before the foreign policy debate erupted. Apart from observing that he had been a star student of my friend Robert P. George at Princeton, I hadn't followed his career closely. Now Sen. Cruz has my undivided attention. Perhaps we have a Republican leader with the intelligence, background and self-confidence to lead the party out of the Bush morass. **** Image illustration via Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com

bias

patriotpost.us

2017-11-27

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/42319/print

Make America Good Again

The Patriot Post ® · Make America Good Again For months now, Donald Trump’s campaign for the U.S. presidency has seduced tens of millions with the cry of “Make America Great Again!” There’s a good reason for this. Tens of millions of Americans — myself included — are convinced that America is off course. The Real Clear Politics polling average on “the direction of the country” reveals that over two-thirds of Americans believe that the country is on the “wrong track.” Polling reveals that this has been the case for years. A “track” implies something singularly linear, the implication being that if we simply elect the right sort of people from the right kind of party, we will turn the country in the right direction. Few things are further from the truth. Dwight Eisenhower once said, “Never let yourself be persuaded that any one Great Man, any one leader, is necessary to the salvation of America. When America consists of one leader and 158 million followers, it will no longer be America.” The responsibility for the direction of America lies in the hands of individual Americans, especially American Christians. In the late 1970s, in their seminal book The Light and the Glory, authors Peter Marshall and David Manuel wrote, “It is the most dangerous kind of corporate self-delusion to think that a President, regardless of how much he heeds God, can reverse the bent of the national will, once it is set in a certain direction…which seems to put the responsibility directly upon each of us who has a personal relationship with our Savior — much as we might like to blame the immorality of others for the precipitous rate of decline. But the responsibility is ours, and it always has been.” The reason the responsibility is ours is because more than any other single factor, the decline of America is the result of decades of attack on the Judeo-Christian worldview. As renowned Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias noted in the fall of 2008, in the race for President of the United States, Mike Huckabee was almost always described as “a former Baptist minister.” Whenever he would speak of his faith, Mitt Romney was described as “a Mormon.” However, as Zacharias himself puts it, “It is fascinating that the media, in a calculated way, does not mention Barack Obama’s middle name — Hussein — lest society see this as religiously prejudicial toward him. This is a clear attack on the Judeo-Christian worldview, the only worldview that could justify the existence of a nation like America.” As documented in my soon-to-be-published book, The Miracle and Magnificence of America, in an election day sermon on April 25, 1799, Jedidiah Morse — noted American geographer, pastor, theologian, and the father of Samuel Morse — warned Americans: “The foundations which support the interest of Christianity, are also necessary to support a free and equal government like our own…To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoy. In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation, either through unbelief, or the corruption of its doctrines, or the neglect of its institutions; in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom, and approximate the miseries of complete despotism.” In other words, it’s the “foundations” of Christianity that support life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that we all enjoy in America, and the quickest and surest way to turn the United States of America into a nation unrecognizable to those who lived only a few generations ago is to destroy these foundations. As King Saul sought to kill David, Psalm 11 records David lamenting, “When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do? (Psalm 11:3)” On this, legendary biblical commentator Matthew Henry concludes, “The principles of religion [here, of course, Henry is referring to the one true "religion:” Christianity] are the foundations on which the faith and hope of the righteous are built. These we are concerned, in interest as well as duty, to hold fast against all temptations to infidelity; for, if these be destroyed, if we let these go, What can the righteous do?“ An old adage (sometimes wrongly attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville) often referenced (at least the final sentence) by politicians of the last several decades (among them Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton) declares that, "I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers — and it was not there … in her fertile fields and boundless forests and it was not there … in her rich mines and her vast world commerce — and it was not there … in her democratic Congress and her matchless Constitution — and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.” In other words, to any degree that America has lost her greatness, she has lost her goodness. Any lofty claims about “making America great again” — especially by biblically-illiterate, adulterous, strip-club owning, casino magnate’s like Donald Trump — that aren’t accompanied by a corresponding commitment to goodness — to truth and righteousness — are mere hyperbole rooted in vain folly. Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World. His website is www.trevorgrantthomas.com.

bias

patriotpost.us

2017-11-27

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/43293/print

Apart From Jesus, We’re Always in Danger

The Patriot Post ® · Apart From Jesus, We’re Always in Danger “Of all bad men,” wrote C.S. Lewis, “religious bad men are the worst.” Lewis added, “The ‘average sensual man,’ who is sometimes unfaithful to his wife, sometimes tipsy, always a little selfish, now and then (within the law) a trip sharp in his deals, is certainly, by ordinary standards, a ‘lower’ type than the man whose soul is filled with some great Cause, to which he will subordinate his appetites, his fortune, and even his safety.” In the atrocity that plagued Orlando this past weekend, we saw Lewis’s long proverb on display. The homosexual nightclub Pulse was filled with those illicitly satisfying their sensual desires. In walks a man who is blind to the notion that you don’t cure one evil through the exercise of another. Motivated by the “great Cause” that is radical Islam, he commits mass murder on a historic scale. Of course, other than perhaps the gunman Omar Mateen, no one visiting Pulse last Saturday night/Sunday morning thought his life was going end. However, make no mistake about it, as this page well documents, and in spite of the decades of liberal propaganda to the contrary, whether or not a homosexual nightclub is visited by a homicidal Islamist, those steeped in the homosexual lifestyle are putting their lives at considerable risk. To remain silent on this issue means tens of thousands of those made in the image of God will suffer horrifically. Multiple studies have revealed that homosexuals live about 20 years less than national averages. Even the CDC admits, “[R]ecent studies have examined the health and health care of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) populations and have found clear disparities among sexual minority groups (i.e., gay or lesbian and bisexual) and between sexual minorities and straight populations. These disparities appear to be broad-ranging, with differences identified for various health conditions… [and] health behaviors such as smoking and heavy drinking…Across most of these outcomes, sexual minorities tend to fare worse than their nonminority counterparts.” In other words, it’s much more dangerous to live a homosexual lifestyle than it is to smoke. (According to the CDC, and The New England Journal of Medicine, the lifespan of smokers is about 10 years less than nonsmokers. And we all know how the left loves cigarettes.) Whether drug or alcohol abuse, homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, false religions, and the like, any place outside the will of God is a dangerous place. “The most dangerous place in America,” said pastor, author, and university president Dr. Mark Rutland, “is the place where authority is not observed and where rebellion is inculcated into the lives of our young people… The most dangerous place in America, is the place that is filled with disrespect, irreverence, and the spirit of lawlessness — the spirit of disobedience.” As I noted after a different mass shooting nearly three years ago, for decades now, millions of American youth, taught by their Faustian masters, (whether in their homes, at their schools, or through the media) have been brought up in this spirit of rebellion. Thus hundreds of millions of Americans have suffered with the cursed fruit of a nation that has rebelled against authority of most every kind, but especially that of God. We are a nation filled with wicked rebellion. (Ask large city police departments — like Chicago’s — where this spirit of rebellion has led.) Good has become evil, and evil has become good. A man commits mass murder and so many of us look for answers and explanations in his weapon of choice. Satan laughs. We have not armed ourselves against one another so much as we have taken up arms against God and His law. No one should be surprised that a nation which has killed over 50 million of its children in the womb is a violent nation in other ways as well. As Mother Teresa taught us, “I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child — a direct killing of the innocent child — murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?” We are a nation plagued not only with violence and lust, but with greed, gluttony, slothfulness, selfishness, along with almost every other wickedness you can imagine. It is little wonder then that we elect leaders who reject God’s idea of marriage and who refuse to defend the most defenseless among us. It is little wonder that, more and more, our courts reject the moral authority of God’s law. Just prior to his death, Moses warned the children of Israel of the curses that followed disobedience: disease, drought, financial ruin, military defeat, and death. Jesus regularly warned of the earthly and the eternal consequences of rejecting Him and going our own way. Filled with pride and jealousy, King Saul spent the last years of his life trying to kill David. While suffering this persecution, David wrote multiple Psalms. Many of these Psalms speak to how David found safety with God. Psalm 34:7-8 declare, “The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him, and he delivers them. Taste and see that the Lord is good; blessed is the man who takes refuge in him.” Nevertheless, a relationship with our Creator does not guarantee an earthly life of protection and safety. Centuries of martyrs testify to this. In spite of his faith, for years David’s life was in danger. In spite of their earthly walk with the Son of God, most of Jesus’ Disciples died for their faith. What they, and all who share their faith, are guaranteed, is that, no matter their earthly fate, they will end up eternally safe in the Father’s Kingdom. My prayer — and yes, to really fix things like this, we must pray — is that those in Orlando and around the world will find this eternal safety in God’s loving arms. Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas

political

pjmedia.com

2017-11-27

https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/04/19/15-creative-writers-constructing-a-new-counterculture-at-liberty-island/12

15 Creative Writers Constructing a New Counterculture at Liberty Island

11. Pierre V. Comtois: Golfing on the Moon Editor’s Note: This is the eleventh in a series of interviews and story excerpts spotlighting some of the most innovative fiction writers at the recently-launched new media publishing platform Liberty Island. The first eight can be read in this collection here, the ninth here, and the tenth here. Find out more about Liberty Island's new writing contest here. Please check out this interview Sarah Hoyt conducted with CEO Adam Bellow here to learn more: “It also has a unique mission: to serve as the platform and gathering-place for the new right-of-center counterculture.” Pierre V. Comtois is a newspaper reporter writing from Lowell, MA who has had fiction and non-fiction published in books and magazines from The Horror Show to Military History. Marvel Comics in the 1980s, the third volume in his history of Marvel Comics, is due out in 2014 and Autumnal Tales, an omnibus collecting the best of his weird and fantasy stories, is coming soon. For more information about the author, visit here. 1. Who are some of your favorite writers, books, movies, and intellectual influences? My favorite non-fiction writers are Peter Hopkirk, Alan Eckert, and Bernard DeVoto among many more. I like many fiction writers in many genres including science fiction, horror, fantasy, western, young adult, and myste, but none really, more than any other. Among them are the likes of Robert E. Howard, Dashiel Hammett, Clark Ashton Smith, H. P. Lovecraft, Edmond Hamilton, Jack Williamson, William Morris, Lord Dunsany, Lucy Maude Montgomery, Victor Appleton II, Walter Gibson, Olaf Stapleton, Richard Matheson, Ray Bradbury, Arthur Machen, James Branch Cabell, Sax Rohmer, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Isaac Asimov, Frederick Pohl, Raymond Chandler, well...there are just too many to list here! Just think pulp authors of the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s and you won't go far wrong! Favorite books and movies fall under the same categories and eras and are too vast in number to list here! As for intellectual influences, I would say they mostly fall under historians rather than philosophers with favorite topics being the Roman Empire, British Empire, American Revolutionary history, WWII, early explorers, and aviation history. Biographies of soldiers, statesmen, and businessmen have also been of interest. 2. How do you describe yourself ideologically? I've always considered myself a moderate but in today's leftist climate where common sense is turned topsy turvy, I'd probably be described as a conservative. 3. Where are you from/currently reside? Massachusetts 4. What are your writing goals? To have short stories, then novels/books published, then a TV or movie script sold. I've accomplished the first two and am working on the third. 5. Where can people find/follow you online? I'm on Facebook and my website is www.pierrevcomtois.com 6. What's your craziest hobby/pastime/interest? I read and collect comic books, primarily silver and bronze age Marvel comics.

political

pjmedia.com

2017-11-27

https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/04/19/15-creative-writers-constructing-a-new-counterculture-at-liberty-island/11

15 Creative Writers Constructing a New Counterculture at Liberty Island

10. Stephen McDonald: 'Long-Term, I’d Like to Hire Others to Produce More Content Set in This Shared Universe...' Editor’s Note: This is the tenth in a series of interviews and story excerpts spotlighting some of the most innovative fiction writers at the recently-launched new media publishing platform Liberty Island. The previous eight can be read in this collection here and yesterday's ninth interview can be read here. Please check out this interview Sarah Hoyt conducted with CEO Adam Bellow here to learn more: “It also has a unique mission: to serve as the platform and gathering-place for the new right-of-center counterculture.” I'm a writer who believes exciting characters should be like good friends: interesting, fun, and visiting often. That's why I specialize in the rapid, quality production of stories featuring recurring characters that are short enough to be read quickly, but long enough for readers to experience a fully realized world of adventure. Always striving to give readers something new, I also blend genres that typically have no business being together--most recently steampunk, science fiction, and horror--to see what happens. 1. Who are some of your favorite writers, books, movies, and intellectual influences? My mom was the slowest shopper. Had to try on everything, and debated with herself the merits of a particular dress or shoe purchase with the thoroughness of Hamlet mulling murder. Growing up I was, it is fair to say, rotten as only an only child can be, and impatient too. But I was also reasonable. Good behavior could be bought with a sufficient bribe. So one day she wants to try on some shoes. I'm in tow, which means a tithe must be paid to Kid Mammon. Such sacrifices were typically in the form of G.I. Joe figures, but as it happened that afternoon, it was a copy of Iron Man #221. My first comic book. As a kid, every first-anything is tinged with magic, and so it was with that issue of Iron Man. I read it so many times that its pages would probably be translucent if you could find it in my father's attic today. Across the gulf of nearly thirty years, what matters about that comic isn’t nostalgia. It’s that it got me thinking about how the story might continue. How it could have gone differently. How it could have been more. Wouldn’t it be cool/interesting/exciting/crazy if…?” I began asking questions like that of every story form I came across. Comics, novels, movies—didn’t really matter. Thinking always in terms of hypotheticals and counterfactuals fires the imagination. On the other hand, you’re also perpetually let down by whatever you watch or read. Nothing ever quite compares to what you come up with yourself. After a certain point, you get tired of being disappointed. Fine, you eventually decide. Guess I’ll have to write it myself. 2. How do you describe yourself ideologically? A conservative that realized there’s nothing left worth conserving anymore. A TEA Partier that realized the country he loved sees him as nothing but a piggy bank to be smashed open. A libertarian that realized you can’t live and let live because the only choices in this life are to rule or be ruled. 3. Which thinkers/commentators have influenced you? Glenn Reynolds, VDH, Mark Levin, Jack Donovan, Free Northerner, AoSHQ, Niall Ferguson, Vox Day, the Futurist’s Misandry Bubble, Foseti. 4. Where are you from? I’m from Delaware, the world's largest strip mall. 5. What are your writing goals? To offer readers something different. I like taking concepts, genres, and characters that have no business being in the same room together, locking them in a cage without any food or water, and seeing what happens. I do this by creating multiple, ongoing series, each in a different genre. Then from time-to-time, I have these series' heroes meet. Long-term, I’d like to hire others to produce more content set in this shared universe. I don’t care if readers know my name. I’d rather my characters be the famous ones. The goal isn’t to be Stephen King. It’s to be Marvel Comics. 6. Where can people find/follow you online? My blog can be found here. Some of my previously published short fiction is available for complimentary download on my Smashwords page. I can also be found darkening the otherwise sunny environs of Liberty Island. 7. What's your craziest hobby/pastime/interest? Not so much anymore, but I used to be into trying to save people from themselves. By way of an example, here’s a snapshot I took back in March 2010—the weekend Congress passed Obamacare—when me and several thousand of the similarly delusional thought we could save America from having her wrists slashed by the Left: Joke was on us, though. The country had already killed itself back in November of 2008. An excerpt from Stephen McDonald's "The Wreck of the Hu Jintao"

bias

patriotpost.us

2017-11-27

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/41987/print

Freedom From Religion Foundation: Part II

The Patriot Post ® · Freedom From Religion Foundation: Part II Any religion, by definition, sports its own distinctive vocabulary, sacred symbolism, grand metanarrative, exclusive truth exercised by faith, code of ethics/morality, creed, rituals, evangelism, and discipleship. As is true with any worldview, secularism by nature is a religion. Logically, to discard religion is to separate from the above, but secularism instead exhibits them all. Hence, “freedom from religion” is better understood as switching religion from one brand to another. In Part 1, we established that judicial acknowledgement, a distinctive vocabulary, grand metanarrative, and vision for the ideal accompany secularism and religion. All inform voters and influence the course of a nation. The late journalist Christopher Hitchens reasoned, “Since it is obviously inconceivable that all religions can be right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.” Of course, one could counter, “Since it is obviously inconceivable that all secularists (or progressives) can be right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.” But I digress. Belief Claiming Exclusive Truth Naturalists reproach biblical apologists for fortifying dogma by inserting “the God of the gaps”; however, in a letter to Dr. Asa Gray, their hero Charles Darwin admitted, “Imagination must fill up very wide blanks.” Despite these blanks, naturalists embrace “settled science” as exclusive truth. Having studied under the famous scholar, Gamaliel, the Apostle Paul had legitimate claim to knowledge of truth. Because experience shows God’s unfailing strength as perfected in weakness, Paul deemed God’s grace to be sufficient and chose wisely to “boast” in his own weaknesses so that “the power of Christ might rest upon him.” In Darwin’s world, to the contrary, the weakest links are expunged as “maladjusted morons and misfits.” In shunning lesser human specimens, secular elitists worship at their own makeshift altar of exclusivity. Exclusive Truth: Settled Science Mind you, Darwin hated his time at school and applied himself minimally. He left Edinburgh without a degree; and, at Christ’s College, Cambridge, where he studied theology, he earned what was regarded as an “ordinary” degree. Darwin’s body of work was not wholly original, as one might expect. Instead, its borrowed tenets were lifted from a poem written by Charles’ grandfather, Dr. Erasmus Darwin. The latter practiced an 18th-century pseudo-science (Galvanism) that involved running electrical currents through corpses of dead animals to bring them back to life. Both wellborn-and-bred British elitists of their day, forward-thinking cousins Darwin and Galton identified with the dark side of the Enlightenment. Both rejected democratic elements, but some semblance of science suited their common cause. Darwin’s legendary treatise, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, filled the bill nicely. In 1993, a number of intellectually dissatisfied scientists representing a variety of disciplines took a fresh look at Darwinism in light of ever exploding scientific knowledge. Unlike Darwin, well-studied, degreed, and highly decorated scientists found irrefutable evidence for Intelligent Design. Accepted by Faith FFRF professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, Jerry Coyne, Ph.D., authored, Why Evolution is True. For Darwin’s theory to fly, faith in random genetic changes, at every turn, must provide advantage in an organism’s struggle to survive. This is not only highly improbable; it’s impossible. Even the evolutionary apologist British zoologist Julian Huxley ceded that a mutation signifies abnormality, not evolutionary advancement. Students of Darwinian thought are expected to overlook the fact that distinctive human attributes (i.e., language, posture/gait, moral/religious sensibilities, art/music appreciation) are not explicable by variations — i.e., multiple mutations or genetic shuffling. If it isn’t observable, repeatable, and measurable, and as long as scientists ask questions and apply the scientific method, science is not settled. My point? Evolutionary theory is just that: a theory. Given the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Irreducible Complexity, and Law of Mutation, chance takes even more faith to believe than creation by an Intelligent Designer of an astonishingly ordered universe! Professor Hoyle compared the Darwinian process to the unlikelihood of a tornado’s sweeping through a junkyard and thereby producing a Boeing 747 from materials therein! Odds of this ever happening are astronomical. Positive Impact on Society Wrongly so, freethinkers credit persons unconstrained by religion with most social and moral progress throughout the history of Western civilization. Marketed to appeal to man’s best intentions (the common good, survival, advanced societies), evolutionary thought instead perpetuates a host of societal ills. Whether by abortion, infanticide, forced sterilization, euthanasia, or assisted suicide, “useless eaters” are targeted for extinction; and “the unfit” remain subject to human experimentalism and pharmacological abuse. Darwin’s theory validated his “good old boys” network of British elitists; and, arguably, it spawned socio-political atrocities of monumental proportion. His flawed line of secularist, elitist thinking is precisely what spawned slavery, segregation, racist immigration laws (to turn away post-war Jewish refugees), the infamous Tuskegee Project, and application of the “one-drop rule” to ensure racial purity/ hygiene. Progress? Positive impact on society? I think not. On the other hand, Dr. James Allan Francis eloquently explained, “Today Jesus is the central figure of the human race and the leader of mankind’s progress. All the armies that have ever marched, all the navies that have ever sailed, all the parliaments that have ever sat, all the kings that ever reigned — put together — have not affected the life of mankind on earth as powerfully as that one solitary life.” Sacred Symbolism FFRF lawyers defend distribution of tracts (called “non-tracts” in the secularist’s lexicon) and activity books on display tables in public schools. Purported advocates of separation between church and state, secularists in Orlando and Denver nonetheless display pamphlets that address sex in the Bible and problems with the Ten Commandments (you know, religion). Foundation co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor assures authorities that the activity book for middle and high school students teaches “kindness” and, if only by limiting the satanic theme to symbols in drawings, “the basic morals that we all agree on.” Occult symbolism gets a pass, but not prayer emojis. Recently, FFRF called on Apple CEO Tim Cook to remove all prayer emojis (symbols of cruel and unusual proselytizing) from iPhones and other devices. The Foundation’s Co-President Dan Barker warns, “Apple may not be afraid of the FBI, but they should be afraid of the millions of secular consumers who can’t stand these emojis.” Code of Ethics/Morality Although Paul Kurtz insists that the Humanist Manifesto is committed to reason, science, and democracy, secular humanism is really secular de-humanism. After all, Kurtz’s worldview recognizes no mandate to celebrate, facilitate, or protect life. Instead, it advances an individual’s right to “die with dignity” — whether by euthanasia or suicide. Because secularists perceive humans as mere products of time and chance, it stands to reason that life is devoid of elevated meaning. Darwinian theory defers to the paramount principle that “ends justify means.” Freethinking poet-historian Jennifer Michael Hecht reasons, “If there is no god — and there isn’t — then we [humans] made up morality. And I’m very impressed.” Claim to have created from nothing something that all can agree upon is indeed impressive — but only as a feat of fancy (a miracle, if you will). In reality, despite secular claims, basic morals that “we all agree on” don’t exist. Creed (Dogma) and Catechism Columnist for The Nation, Katha Pollitt, regularly and energetically proclaims the atheist’s creed, “There is no God.” In accordance with this creed, secularists must transcend “inflexible moral and religious ideologies.” True to the secular catechism, believers celebrate, practice, and reward “plain speaking” on the shortcomings of religion. Accordingly, at the FFRF 39th annual convention in Pittsburgh (October 2016), theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss will be awarded the Emperor Has No Clothes Award. The Humanist Manifesto urges “people of good will” to work together toward “human ends,” but notable secularist, Oxford professor emeritus Richard Dawkins, characterizes the God of the Old Testament as “the most unpleasant character in all fiction.” While Dawkins claims for himself the right to freedom from offense, he denies Christians and Jews the same courtesy. Conclusion Both worldviews, secularism and religion, hold claim to exclusive truth accepted by faith, a creed (dogma), and sacred symbolism. Exercising an identified code of ethics and morality, each claims to impact society positively. To insist that secularism frees one from religion is incredulous; nonetheless, the Freedom From Religion Foundation accepts the one as truth, the other as fancy.

bias

patriotpost.us

2017-11-27

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/9205/print

A Rejoinder to Susie O'Brien

The Patriot Post ® · A Rejoinder to Susie O'Brien Late last year, rock star Hillary Clinton disappointed politically-correct Australians on tour, when she opposed redefining marriage. They didn’t know what to do. If a conservative said the same, they’d boo ferociously. The funny thing: Even here (I kid you not) pro-gay marriage columnists, like Susie O'Brien, are piggybacking on the African-American Civil Rights Movement. Nor should one underestimate their selective compassion. Of the liberal-sounding Catholic and headline-hungry Father Bob Maguire, the Herald Sun’s Susie O'Brien declared, “I respect his views but would like to see an open minded man like him fight the might of the Catholic Church. Why not perform gay ceremonies in churches? Who is it going to hurt? Surely gay people deserve to enjoy the pomp and ceremony of a church ‘wedding’ even if they can’t be legally married.” The surprise: It appears as though (a) O'Brien has never met an anti-gay marriage homosexual in her life and (b) that she believes that all gays with church fantasies are camper than Elton John’s wigs, period. The hysterical columnist proclaimed too that, “Holding gay ceremonies in churches would bring gay marriage one step further. Eventually gay marriage will be just as natural to us in this country as Vegemite sandwiches.” For through the “church” gays can find eternal happiness! Stereotypes aside, though, why target devout Christians? A fair-and-balanced gay marriage activist would state that holding “gay ceremonies” in mosques wouldn’t hurt anyone either. After all, O'Brien’s walking clichés love pomp and ceremony, right? Or maybe she never was tolerant. Race Cards It’s also telling how separation-of-church-and-state cheerleaders are taking anti-evangelical positions, while trying to inject their spiritual-sounding secularism and environmentalism into churches. And never underestimate the activist’s penchant for race cards. Or to paraphrase Dr. Thomas Sowell, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution: Middleclass leftwing gays with wedding dreams aren’t blacks, so please stop patronizing us. Mind you, bigoted-sounding elites need victims. Before writing her Catholicophobic column, “Gay weddings should be legal and performed in all churches” (as opposed to mosques), Susie O'Brien also likened middleclass white gay marriage goals to black civil rights in her equally painful column, “Time for gay marriage to get the nod in Australia.” In another attempt at historical relevance, O'Brien posited: “Arguing that civil unions are equal to marriage is like arguing that legendary US civil rights campaigner Rosa Parks was getting the same ride as the white people, even though she was made to give up her seat to whites.” And: “It’s like saying blacks are being treated fairly because they still can get a drink at their blacks-only water fountain. It’s fiction.” Problem 1,245: African-Americans, who helped to defeat gay marriage in California, are bigots according to O'Brien’s logic. Poll Politics Furthermore, no case for gay marriage is complete without fake polls to push the imaginary consensus along. After nearly patronizing politically-incorrect gays and blacks to death, O'Brien has also presented activist-inspired polls to the public as scientific works, maintaining that “politicians may be surprised by the outcome: according to a Galaxy Poll released last month, a growing majority of Australians – 62 per cent – believe that same-sex couples should have the right to marry.” Granted, they may also be surprised to learn that the poll was funded by two activist groups, and that 1050 respondents were asked, “A number of countries allow same-sex couples to marry. These include Argentina, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa and Spain, as well as parts of the United States and Mexico. Do you agree or disagree that same-sex couples in Australia should be able to marry?” Of course, I’d love the Australian Christian Lobby to ask 1050 respondents the following: “Only a few countries have embraced gay marriage because of anti-democracy activist judges. Do you agree or disagree that same-sex couples in Australia should be able to ‘marry’?” But my question would be considered unethical. And speaking of which, is it just me or are certain polls/surveys buried and/or downplayed when they contradict gay marriage activists? For instance, the Herald Sun recently claimed that more people support gay marriage than in the 1990s, while slipping in this little sentence, “But the Australia Scan survey of 2000 people revealed that almost half thought the concept was unacceptable and 18 per cent were unsure.” The headline? “More people OK with gay marriage”! Not: “Less support for gay marriage than Galaxy claims.” Untested activist quotes and a happy snap of "married" Elton John and his partner were also utilised, for propaganda purposes. In the end, O'Brien isn’t just mothering gay marriage activists, she’s also trying to intimidate critical-thinking Australians (homosexuals and straights alike) when she uses labels and trigger words/terms like “bigoted, homophobic opponents of gay marriage” and “small-minded individuals.” Even Hillary Clinton fails her PC test. B.P. Terpstra is an Australian writer and blogger. His works can be found on The Daily Caller (Washington D.C.), NewsReal Blog (Los Angeles), Quadrant (Sydney), and On Line Opinion (Brisbane).

bias

patriotpost.us

2017-11-27

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/8926/print

Beyond Conservatism: Is CPAC Going Omnisexual Proud?

The Patriot Post ® · Beyond Conservatism: Is CPAC Going Omnisexual Proud? More Americans now identify with the prolife movement than ever before in polling history, according to Gallup. As well, 31 out of 31 voter-friendly states have rejected “gay marriage” and even Democrats are losing faith in Al Gore’s climate alarmist theology. But as America turns right, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), an annual political conference for so-called conservatives, is turning left. How? In another example, of political correctness gone mad, CPAC co-supporter GOProud (a “gay conservative” group) is holding a party, headlined by two-hit wonder pop star, Sophie B. Hawkins, a decision that seems designed to promote controversy. In her GO Magazine interview, dated July 10, 2008, Hawkins proclaimed, “I love my phrase ‘omnisexual,’” and pontificated about the meaning of love. “The truth about omnisexuality is my sexuality is spiritual. It’s creative. I absolutely can fall in love with any gender if I love the person’s mind, heart and soul.” The evangelical omnisexual and Hillary Clinton loyalist isn’t one to hold back, to be sure. “I grew up in a family where there wasn’t monogamy. Both parents had affairs and did whatever they wanted,” revealed the progressive Los Angeles Women’s Music Festival-friendly green singer. Values Clash Sure. GOProud is a so-called conservative gay political group that proclaims it wants to stay clear of social issues and focus on fiscal conservatism. “But how do you divorce the two?” ask conservatives. And another question. If an identity-first conservative group thinks all conservatives should stay away from social issues, then shouldn’t they lead by moral example? Or as the National Online Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez wrote last week, “In the heat of the midterm campaigns, GOProud joined liberals in attacking DeMint over comments he made about religious freedom and education – comments that bore no connection to any kind of legislative initiative.” It sounds odd indeed. On Monday, GOProud basically says conservatives should shut up when it comes to social issues. On Tuesday, GOProud promotes liberal positions on social issues. The impression: Help Hawkins’ career – trash DeMint’s. “GOProud presents itself as a victim” too explains Lopez (and Jimmy LaSalvia, its executive director is no exception). “But GOProud has not simply disagreed with the rest of the conservative movement on marriage while highlighting other issues. It has become a go-to group for comments about family and sexuality – a gift to a media seeking to highlight divisions among the Right.” Victimhood Talents The prudent student of conservatism should also examine how America’s establishment media is covering GOProud and the related CPAC boycotts, as well as the many ways in which some of GOProud’s supporters are playing the victim card. Also last week, LaSalvia informed the New York Times, “The reason the boycotters applied a litmus test to us is because we were born gay” against piles of statements, to the contrary. So welcome to the language of media-approved victimhood and social issues, through the backdoor! In this new victimhood arena, tribal gay groups can make unscientific arguments, without debate, because remember that social conservatives and other independent thinkers are forbidden from raising social questions, and because many adults-first libertarians never did respect religious freedom, my guess. And are we to deny that academics, like Camille Paglia, a self-identified lesbian, and many others, have described the “born gay” thesis as a “crock”? For the professor states: “P.c. ideology is usually simplistically social constructionist, but when it comes to gayness, biology currently rules the roost. Of course it makes no sense. As I have written in the past, homosexuality is an adaptation, the product of a multitude of social and psychological factors.” Partying Politics “This party will highlight the story the main stream [sic] media has missed in the weeks leading up to CPAC, namely that the vast majority of the conservative movement is united and welcomes GOProud and any other conservative into the fold,” reads a statement by Andrew Breitbart of GOProud’s Advisory Council. It’s also the tribal group’s apparent ambition to showcase a new made-for-television view of “conservatism” where an expected 10,000 CPAC attendees will be portrayed as representative conservatives (read: groovy Meghan McCain Republicans). More scientific voting patterns though show psychological disconnects between GOProud’s theory and Middle America. Turning again to our helper, sociology, Americans aren’t fond of rewarding tribal groups, bent on promoting fatherless families, rewarding anti-conservative singers or individuals with anti-DeMint agendas. Why? Because Middle Americans are proud too. Proud of their beliefs, proud of their Founding Fathers, and proud of their conservative voting records. They might not be the fanciest people on earth, but hey they’re not going to throw Jesus under the bus, for a show. My take: One shouldn’t knock conservatives for wanting to meet with real conservatives. After all, Hawkins can save her omnisexuality for the Los Angeles Women’s Music Festival. B.P. Terpstra is an Australian writer and blogger. His works can be found on The Daily Caller (Washington D.C.), NewsReal Blog (Los Angeles), Quadrant (Sydney), and On Line Opinion (Brisbane).

bias

patriotpost.us

2017-11-27

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/8847/print

Why Is There a C in CPAC?

The Patriot Post ® · Why Is There a C in CPAC? Move over Desperate Housewives. “With leading conservative organizations not participating this year, Senator DeMint will not be attending. He hopes to attend a unified CPAC next year,” DeMint’s spokesman explained. No surprise there. However, B. Daniel Blatt of Gay Patriot responded with this unpersuasive comeback: “Leading conservative organizations? Well, Heritage isn’t participating. That’s about the only leading conservative organization I can think of that’s passing on the event.” For those of you who don’t know, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) is an annual political event for conservatives, and yet it attracts adults-first libertarians and chardonnay socialist RINOs, for some peculiar reason. As such, no serious observers are surprised to hear that conservative family-focused groups and individuals are withdrawing support. In stark contrast, sheltered journalists and tribal-sounding gay groups are portraying CPAC’s boycotters as irrelevant social conservatives. They’re the smelly hillbillies from the Deep South without dental plans! But as concerns mount over social issues like same-sex marriage (31 voter-first states out of 31 voter-first states have rejected it) who believes the Hollywood-style talking points? To begin with, I’m going to disagree with the otherwise thoughtful Mr. Blatt and here’s why: The groups and individuals withdrawing from CPAC are major players, without question. Take the Media Research Center. “From a $$339,000 initial annual budget, the MRC has grown to be the nation’s largest and most sophisticated television and monitoring operation, now employing 60 professional staff with a $$10 million annual budget.” To be sure, MRC is one of the strongest conservative groups in the U.S., quoted by major rightwing and leftwing media sources alike. Even their NewsBusters project, a rapid-response blog, has a big internet following. Take the American Family Association. “The organization has an annual budget of roughly US $$14 million and owns 180 American Family Radio stations in 28 states” and the “AFA Journal is a monthly publication with a circulation of 180,000.” Or allow me to put it this way: In 2008, the popular National Review magazine’s circulation was around 169,000 (and not surprisingly 185,000 for its post-election issue). Take Concerned Women for America. The CWA describes itself as “the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization with a rich 30-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy.” Or in others words, bigger than brunch with Elton John. Take the Family Research Council. They’d have to be one of the most innovative and effective policy organizations in modern political history, and so on. Indeed, it’s astonishing how a smart and polite-sounding guy like Blatt misses the obvious. The Heritage Foundation, of course, is the most broadly supported think tank in America, but to dismiss other conservative boycotters and potential boycotters, from DeMint to the Media Research Center is counterproductive. The arguments against withdrawing often rest on a narrow understanding of conservative history too. For example, campaigning journalists can’t figure out why conservatives would have trouble with some gay marriage and pro-abortion speakers, as if to suggest that George Washington and Jesus Christ were some fringe figures, with no cultural influence across today’s America. It’s an unsustainable myth, however. Nor are friendship circle arguments sustainable. In fact, statements like, “Oh, but they’re still selling tickets,” should be taken with a grain of salt – and an aspirin. The real consequences will be felt over the long term, but moreover, more will ask: Are pretend-conservatives attending pretend conservative conferences, a sideshow to the real game? And: Where is the conservatism of our Founding Fathers in all of this? The fact is America’s not-so-conservative CPAC is more made-for-TV Washington D.C. than Middle America. In 2007, Mitt Romney of socialist RomneyCare fame won the Straw Poll for the Republican Nominee for President (with the pro-abortionist Rudy Giuliani coming in a close second). The joke was repeated in 2008 when John McCain of pro-amnesty fame came in second. In 2009, Mr. RomneyCare was once again “the man” only losing to the pro-appeasement Ron Paul in 2010. Closer to planet earth, however, mainstream Americans tend to reject gruesome partial-birth abortion procedures and soft-on-Islamist strategies to accommodate a pretend big tent ideology. They’re also living with the tax-and-spend consequences of the expressive divorce revolution too, and don’t see the point of creating more government-dependent fatherless family units. Granted, if individuals plan to attend some conference, that’s their choice, and good luck to them (if they’re there to raise critical-thinking questions). Still, I also see why conservatives are tired of defending conservative principles at a conservative conference. B. Blatt isn’t dumb, just misdirected, and even an eighties dance party won’t drown out Middle America. For more perspective: While CPAC is expected to attract an estimated 10,000 attendees, the Second Baptist Church of Houston alone has a weekly attendance of 24,000. B.P. Terpstra is an Australian writer and blogger. His works can be found on The Daily Caller (Washington D.C.), NewsReal Blog (Los Angeles), Quadrant (Sydney), and On Line Opinion (Brisbane).

bias

patriotpost.us

2017-11-27

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/8792/print

My Problem With Andrew Sullivan

The Patriot Post ® · My Problem With Andrew Sullivan As things now stand, Christians who hope to overthrow prostitute-killing Islamism, support a baby’s right to a full birth, and defend time-honored marriage are Christianists. But there’s more. Tea Party members are also Christianists even if they’re self-identified atheists, according to Andrew Sullivan. Appearing on NBC’s “The Chris Matthews Show” last week, The Daily Dish blogger, inveighed: “The Tea Party, of course is not about fiscal issues at all. They have no plans to balance the budget now or any time in the future. They are radical Christianist, right-wing group…” I have my doubts. Indeed, Andrew Sullivan is so obsessed with Christianists (the unicorns of American political life) that some theorize he is one – or am I just spreading a hate joke planted by the Protestant Ann Coulter? To be balanced, though, in 2006 (May 7, to be precise) Sullivan did admit he had a problem in one confessional piece, “My Problem with Christianism.” In his case against Big Christian, the self-professed Christian even gave examples of Christianism’s evil reach, minus the hooked nosed Baptist cartoons. It was explosive. Sullivan’s Perry Mason-like investigation uncovered one mind-blowing scoop after another including (among other groundbreaking facts): the alleged fact that right-wing Christians have a problem living next-door to atheists and single mothers (without one shred of evidence), Rush Limbaugh’s anti-abortion comments directed at Democrats for some reason (no idea why), and even the title of Ann Coulter’s New York Times bestseller, “Godless” (which I ordered from a massive internet hate speech store – or was it Amazon.com?). Yes, robotic Christianists are what they are, with their Christianizing ways and all. As well, Sullivan made fundamentalist-sounding arguments against fundamentalists (a contradiction in terms). After reminding tortured readers why he felt their pain, the drugstore philosopher added: “And there are those who simply believe that, by definition, God is unknowable to our limited, fallible human minds and souls. If God is ultimately unknowable, then how can we be so certain of what God’s real position is on, say, the fate of Terri Schiavo? Or the morality of contraception? Or the role of women?” Or Richard Kim? Maybe breaking babies’ necks is a grey area, but let me scan my NIV Exhaustive Concordance. And maybe Catholics should have embraced red professors during the Cold War, but let’s look for 100 million-plus bodies, before shedding crocodile tears. Then, I’ll let my betters compare, and contrast. Or as the Christian, Joe Carter of First Things put it, a Christianist is, “Someone who calls themselves a Christian and who Andrew Sullivan thinks is wrong about a particular issue.” Retuning to 2011 again, Sullivan is still a self-styled myth buster, busting numerous mythological myths. “To my mind, there are two widely believed myths about the Tea Party. The first is that they care about debt,” he declares. And (surprise!): “The second myth is that they are somehow unlike the Christianist right, and more tolerant and easy-going on social issues.” But (surprise!): “Again, I think this is wishful thinking. My own view is that they are hard-line Christianists in a different outfit – powdered wigs, muskets and red cheeks – and are outliers on issues of modernity – racial integration, women’s rights, gay equality.” I take it that right-leaning Episcopalians opposed to polygamous marriage are being paid by Big Christian, too. All of this sounds hardline, for a moderate like Andrew “Of No Party Or Clique” Sullivan, so one wonders how the self-identified Christian would receive Jesus, the table-turning, heaven-and-hell warning misfit. And, why do I question? You can thank the “Christianist” Tea Party, Mr. Sullivan. B.P. Terpstra is an Australian writer and blogger. His works can be found on The Daily Caller (Washington D.C.), NewsReal Blog (Los Angeles), Quadrant (Sydney), and On Line Opinion (Brisbane).

bias

patriotpost.us

2017-11-27

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/19121/print

Obama's New Data Hub

The Patriot Post ® · Obama's New Data Hub And we thought things couldn’t get worse after the cover on the IRS abuses was blown and the scope of NSA snooping on Americans was revealed. As details about the ObamaCare data hub leak out, our constitutional Fourth Amendment protection is fading faster than a post-election promise. This is what happens when 2,700-page bills are passed that none of the elected officials have the time or interest to read before voting on it. Since no Republican in either house voted for ObamaCare, I’m talking about Democrats, of course, whose air-headed leader in the House of Representatives famously said, “… we have to pass the [healthcare] bill so that you can find out what’s in it….” Well, we’re finding what’s in it. The fulcrum of ObamaCare is its 50 insurance exchanges – one in each state. Among other functions, the exchanges collect data and information required to administer ObamaCare. The agency that enforces compliance is the IRS, renowned for its citizen abuse skills. The Chief Knee-cracker for ObamaCare enforcement is Sarah Hall Ingram, who was in charge of the IRS office at the center of the Tea Party targeting scandal and gave her the experience for this assignment. If Sarah Hall Ingram were Thelma, Louise would be Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who was given absolute control in the law to implement the aim of ObamaCare by whatever means she chose. The means she chose include the ObamaCare data hub – the Mother of All Databases – a technology achievement never before attempted on this scale. The data hub will connect (hold on to your britches) the HHS (entitlement qualification and medical records) with the Social Security Administration (your unique identifier number), the IRS (your income, and employment status), the Department of Homeland Security, (your citizenship and international travel information), Department of Justice (your criminal history), the Veterans Administration (military service information), Office of Personnel Management (information on government employees), the Department of Defense (unit and deployment history), and the Peace Corps (domestic and foreign service assignments.) Plus the hub will tap into state databases to confirm residency and Medicaid criteria. Everyone will be required by law or regulation to report changes in marital status, changes in income, hours worked, changes in employer, moves to a new state, a change in insurance plans, and changes in your criminal history. You can see a schematic here of Obama’s tentacular intrusiveness which his data hub represents. Think of the hub as a busy four-way intersection through which all traffic must flow to get anywhere and a record is kept of everyone and everything that passes through it. In a column in USA Today, University of Minnesota professor and Manhattan Institute scholar Stephen T. Parente said “The federal government is planning to quietly enact what could be the largest consolidation of personal data in the history of the republic … when the constantly updated information is combined in a central data hub, the potential for abuse is staggering.” Edward Snowden showed us how much confidence we should have in the federal government’s ability to keep confidential information confidential. Last year a hacker accessed 3.6 million data base records in South Carolina with Social Security numbers and bank account data. A recent Government Accountability Office audit said weaknesses in IRS security systems “continue to jeopardize the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the financial and sensitive taxpayer information.” Another audit discovered that the IRS unintentionally exposed confidential information on thousands of taxpayers in 2009 and 2010. The next year the Social Security Administration did the same thing on a larger scale. But what do you expect from a government that can’t competently run a postal service or Amtrak profitably? The consolidation of all this data will make it the most attractive hacker target in the world. If the feds can’t prevent inadvertent data releases from independent agency servers, does anyone really believe they can safeguard this data base? Willie Sutton said the reason he robbed banks was because that was where the money was kept. A hub/database like the one Obama and Sebelius are creating is like Willie Sutton’s banks. Why would thieves look anywhere other than the ObamaCare data hub to steal identities, commit credit fraud, or know if you have assets worth stealing. With only one place to look and a “winner take all” payoff, thieves may team up and work together. Computer hacking technology should become a growth industry. After failing to master the expertise to run the postal service and a railroad, the government is now going to reform healthcare, bring down costs, and collect a ton of information in the process. Assuming the data could be kept safe from thieves – which I wouldn’t assume for a heartbeat – what’s to keep it from being abused by the government? Us??? Not us? (wink, wink.) “Mr. Throckmorton, I see from our computer records that you’ve voted Republican in the last seven elections. Our experts have denied your life-saving operation at this time. Please check back with us after the next election.” (Of course, it cuts both ways. The Republicans will regain the White House at some point and may also have control of both houses of Congress.) Memo to those who believe abuse won’t happen: Did you read about Sebelius soliciting “contributions” from the industry she regulates … money which would be turned over to ObamaCare supporters to drum up support for the unpopular law and encourage people to participate in the exchanges? Do you remember the Obama and Sebelius goons inviting citizens to report their fellow citizens who hated ObamaCare? “If you get an email or see something on the Web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to [email protected],” they urged. Only ideologues who deny First Amendment protection would call for citizens to do such a thing. In combination with data collected by NSA spying what would not be known about American lives? Not to worry, says the Obama administration. “The hub will not store consumer information, but will securely transmit data between state and federal systems to verify consumer application information,” or so it claims in an online fact sheet. The Center for Consumer Information & Insurance Oversight at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services says hey, no sweat. The information we collect will not be stored, and privacy is the “highest priority.” But a regulatory notice that Obama’s boys and girls filed early this year tells a different story. That filing describes a new “system of records” that will store names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, taxpayer status, gender, ethnicity, email addresses, telephone numbers on the millions of people expected to apply for coverage at the ObamaCare exchanges, as well as “tax return information from the IRS, income information from the Social Security Administration, and financial information from other third-party sources.” Data from businesses that buy insurance on an exchange, including a “list of qualified employees and their tax ID numbers,” will be kept on file for 10 years. That’s a lot of information not to collect and not store. Check out the online filing certificate and you’ll see the federal government can disclose any information it collects “without the consent of the individual” to almost anyone – “agency contractors, consultants, or grantees” who “need to have access to the records” to help run ObamaCare, as well as law enforcement officials to “investigate potential fraud.” Who did they leave out? Republican lawmakers have asked Kathleen Sebelius how HHS and other sources of data will protect sensitive information but she hasn’t gotten back to them with an answer. She’s really busy, you know. I’ve often said the worst idea that government ever conceived was the central sewage system. When property owners had to get rid of their waste relying on a septic tank the size of an automobile, waste disposal was a manageable problem. When some bright guy said, “Hey, let’s consolidate all of this into a central sewage system,” you now had a big disposal mess – preprocessing, sedimentation ponds, effluent disposal, and on, and on – all caused by consolidation. One thing leads to another in most things. In order for ObamaCare to function it requires an invasion of privacy on a grand scale that would not be needed if there were no ObamaCare. The data hub became necessary to enable agency computers to “talk” to each other – something that’s never been attempted. Collecting the data puts it at risk for exposure, if not theft. Storing the data makes it attractive to every hacker in the galaxy. None of this would have been necessary without ObamaCare. All of this is headed toward a disaster. Even the author of ObamaCare, Max Baucus (D-MT) says it’s a train wreck waiting to happen. And when it happens, it will be like the walls on a sewage retention pond collapsing and data will run everywhere. Representative Diane Black (R-TN), a member of the House Oversight Committee complained that ObamaCare isn’t close to being at a point that allows it to be implemented. She is the author of H.R. 2022, Stopping Government Abuse of Taxpayer Information Act, which halts the implementation of ObamaCare until all government agencies with access to the Federal Data Services Hub certify under penalty of perjury that taxpayer information will not be used to target individuals based on their beliefs. Black’s bill might get out of committee. It might even be brought to the floor of the House for a full vote. But it has no chance in the Senate. If it did, Obama wouldn’t sign it. Her effort is symbolic and isn’t likely to draw a lot of attention. Max Baucus paid for his perfidy by leaving the Senate. He’s in a tough race in Montana and his authorship of ObamaCare has cost him with voters. Last week, Obama announced the delay of the ObamaCare mandate until 2015. In one sense, this was an admission that the vast apparatus needed wasn’t in place – which was helped when 30 Republican governors refused to set up exchanges This has set the stage for legal challenges regarding what Obama can do to create the exchanges and disburse subsidies. In a larger sense, Obama made a shrewd political move. With the 2014 mid-year elections heating up, the last thing the Democrats want is for voters to experience what was in store for them had ObamaCare been allowed to proceed during an election year. They hope there is an outside chance Democrats could win back the House, giving Obama free rein to run amok the last two years of his administration. It’s more likely that the Republicans will retain the House and an outside chance of taking the Senate. Even gaining seats would slow down Harry Reid’s Senate agenda. The execution is delayed, not pardoned. Those full time employees whose hours would have been cut to avoid ObamaCare – about 3.2 million – get a reprieve. Good news for fast food and theater employees. Small companies that would have been forced into layoffs to escape the 50-employee cutoff for ObamaCare compliance can delay for a year. ObamaCare would have hurt the economic recovery. Now that’s it’s delayed, the economy may improve and Obama can beat his breast and crow that his policies are working. So far, it seems like Obama wins by delaying implementation. But unless Republicans are catatonic, which I often think they are, they might want to insist that the law move forward – unless, of course, they want to cede both the executive and legislative functions to the White House and go home. The law, which John Roberts so cleverly kept resuscitating, states that the employer mandate penalties under IRC Section 4980H “shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.” Unless that’s repealed, it must be enforced. Last time I checked, the President can’t repeal laws, and he can’t enforce the ones he likes and delay others if that serves his needs.

political

pjmedia.com

2017-11-27

https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/04/19/15-creative-writers-constructing-a-new-counterculture-at-liberty-island/10

15 Creative Writers Constructing a New Counterculture at Liberty Island

9. Todd Seavey: 'It Was Star Wars That Taught Me to Love Science, Fantasy, Music, and Capitalism Simultaneously' Editor’s Note: This is the ninth in a series of interviews and story excerpts spotlighting some of the most innovative fiction writers at the recently-launched new media publishing platform Liberty Island. The previous eight can be read in this collection here. Please check out this interview Sarah Hoyt conducted with CEO Adam Bellow here to learn more: “It also has a unique mission: to serve as the platform and gathering-place for the new right-of-center counterculture.” Todd Seavey has written for various libertarian and libertarian-leaning venues including the American Council on Science and Health, Reason, John Stossel, Judge Andrew Napolitano, New York Press, and more. He has also written Justice League comic books for DC Comics, hosts a series of political bar gatherings in New York City, and blogs at ToddSeavey.com. He studied philosophy at Brown University. He is Liberty Island's comics editor and writer of the punk time travel short story "No Future" -- when not writing, ghostwriting, or TV-producing libertarian non-fiction things. 1. Who are some of your favorite writers, books, movies, and intellectual influences? It was Star Wars that taught me to love science, fantasy, music, and capitalism simultaneously. All else is a footnote to Star Wars 2. How do you describe yourself ideologically? I'm an anarcho-capitalist, that is, a libertarian consistent enough to want all governments completely abolished, from welfare to police to regulators to the military -- and replaced by the simple, decentralized, private enforcement of property rights. Any other political position is manifestly insane. 3. Which thinkers/commentators have influenced you? Libertarian writers including David Friedman, Murray Rothbard, and Robert Nozick were big influences, but also skeptical, pro-science writers such as James "the Amazing" Randi. Together, they made it much easier to imagine life without government and without religion or other supernatural/irrational beliefs. 4. Where are you from/currently reside? I grew up in New England, which has a nice history of mellow yet revolutionary sentiment. I now live in Manhattan, which is not mellow. 5. What are your writing goals? If through non-fiction, comedy, or fiction in various media I can help make people more comfortable thinking they don't need these systems of collective control, I've helped make the world a better place. As a good utilitarian, I just want everyone to be happy. 6. Where can people find/follow you online? I can be found at: http://www.libertyislandmag.com/creator/ToddSeavey/home.html http://ToddSeavey.com http://Twitter.com/ToddSeavey http://Facebook.com/ToddSeavey http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYxVSpZ_GvBeVMWPcNT32Nw 7.What’s your craziest hobby/pastime/interest? I've hosted debates in New York City for years that have brought together some rather opinionated and eccentric characters, but it is always my hope that the larger goal of learning from each other will overcome the short-term philosophical or personal scuffles, just as the cantina at Mos Eisley continues to operate despite fights among the clientele.

bias

patriotpost.us

2017-11-27

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/36763/print

The Tsunami of Political Corruption

The Patriot Post ® · The Tsunami of Political Corruption The tsunami of political corruption and tyranny has overtaken the liberty birthright of every American of every political stripe. The United States of America was founded upon individual freedom and responsibility with built-in protections designed to protect that freedom. The protections afforded, not granted, by the US Constitution were designed for a moral electorate who would faithfully execute their oaths of office to defend and protect our liberty granted by the Supreme God of the universe. Today our elected are not honoring their oaths. The corruption, immorality and power hungry behavior of our elected has reached depths unseen in the annuals of USA history. Our elected, rather than faithfully executing their oath of office, have instead literally executed the oath itself and worked to seize a power known only to dictators and royalty, making the once free people of this nation subjugated to a power-drunk government elite that ignores their elected purpose. The tax burden of this nation has grown beyond what the colonialist faced with the tyranny of King George the III. The train of abuses to the liberty of the people of the United States of America by our elected is so numerous that the freedom protected no longer exists and the abuses of power far exceed the tyranny of King George the III. We the People are taxed and regulated for every single activity undertaken in the name of our safety and protection. All income, no matter the source, derived is seized at varying degrees of percentages decided by bureaucrats on how much of your income, sweat and earnings you will be allowed to keep. Our homes are no longer owed by the citizens. Even if the home is paid for completely, your ownership is dependent upon the benevolence of our all-powerful local, state and federal government hungry for ever increasing revenue streams they create to fund their benevolence. We are ordered by government dictates how to conduct our daily lives, how we will raise our children, how they will be educated; step out of government bureaucrat’s definition of normal and the government will seize your children. If you resist, you may be killed or imprisoned. Is this freedom? Our speech is regulated to what is acceptable and our belief systems are attacked by government minions as hateful and outdated. Our love and belief in our God is demonized, we are persecuted for following our religious beliefs and traditions that have existed for thousands of years. Where do we go from here? Into the night of freedom lost, or do we rebel and restore our liberty? The price for either path will be great; the question is which path you will choose for your children and their children: liberty or slavery, citizen or subject?

political

pjmedia.com

2017-11-27

https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2016/07/31/malia-obama-caught-on-video-twerking-and-flashing-the-crowd-a-lollapalooza/

VIDEO: First Daughter Malia Obama Goes Wild at Lollapalooza

First daughter Malia Obama skipped out on the Democratic National Convention last week (who can blame her?) so she could attend Lollapalooza, the annual music fest in Chicago. The 18-year-old recently graduated from high school and is planning to take a gap year before she begins classes at Harvard in 2017. Her Secret Service agents must have their hands full trying to keep Malia safe amid the swarms of concertgoers, many of whom were there to enjoy more than just the music. Last year there were 34 arrests and 238 people were sent to hospitals, many for excessive drug and alcohol use. One hospital reported treating teenagers with two to three times the legal alcohol limit after they mixed hard liquor with marijuana, ecstasy or cocaine. It looks like Malia was just there to enjoy the music and dancing. And boy, did she ever enjoy the dancing. She was caught on camera twerking and flipping up the shirt she had tied around her waist, revealing her short shorts, while she partied with some of her girlfriends during the Mac Miller concert. Check it out: Next page: Someone in the crowd also caught Malia on video rocking out while listening to Cashmere Cat

bias

patriotpost.us

2017-11-27

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/34520/print

A Different Set of Rules

The Patriot Post ® · A Different Set of Rules In my view, liberal opinion on anything that has to do with morals and maturity is mired in a continuing lack of understanding not far beyond a baby crying because it is hungry. On the subject of their belief in God or not is immaterial to the truth of the universe. It strongly appears that the modern liberal cannot deal with the possibility that there is a power greater than they; sort of like, but not to the high level of, a “know it all teen” with their vast knowledge and experience. The current breed of Liberal Progressives, whose opinion of how the world should be, is only one of many differing opinions in the world at large, but to the liberal, everyone who is cool and intelligent will follow the liberal socialist doctrine, all others are hateful bigots. Ronald Reagan said it right: “Liberals know so much that just isn’t so.” There is nothing in their liberal doctrine that has any granted power over me, to compel me to change my way of belief and take away my rights as a free man. People have fought and died to preserve their religious freedom and make no mistake about it will do so again if force to choose between capitulating their faith and facing the brute force of anti-freedom government and their rabid liberal minions. The choice is quite simple. The liberal gay agenda does not trump what is Christian belief and traditions and there is absolutely no power I or millions of others have granted them to change established religious belief, thousands of years of tradition and way of thinking by attempting to force Christians into adopting a different set of rules that are defined and acceptable to the liberal doctrine followers. Liberals has assumed a power to force Christians into compliance to what the Liberal Progressives view of the world is. YOU will comply with the liberal view of what the world is or you WILL suffer at their hand and from the liberal supporting media as well; they all want you to believe resistance is futile. The Liberal core is mired in the socialist doctrine and is not a doctrine this United States of America was founded upon; the benevolence of government has evolved to know no bounds in dictating not only our daily lives and percent of retained income but now assumes the power to dictate our daily religious beliefs by restricting our freedom to only do and say what is acceptable to the Liberal Doctrine, Christianity be dammed.

bias

patriotpost.us

2017-11-27

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/42577/print

Letter to President Obama

The Patriot Post ® · Letter to President Obama President Obama, I just saw on the news where you’re directing all school districts in America to open all bathrooms, locker rooms, showers etc. to any person (child) based on their self gender identity, not their biology as stated in their birth certificate. Does a president’s wishes now trump God’s law? Before I give you my opinion of that, and perhaps the opinion of 300 million or more of my fellow citizens, I’d like to quote from a well known document, Communist Party Goals, as read into the Congressional Record in 1963. There were 45; here are six: #16 — Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights. #17 — Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the Party line in textbooks. #24 — Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press. #25 — Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV. #26 — Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.” #40 — Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. You should read the rest of them, 90% of which has already been accomplished within our Constitutional Republic, but you know that already. You’re complicit. This action is just another attempt to further weaken an already decaying society. So, how is it that an unconstitutionally qualified usurper to the Oval Office, in conjunction with an unconstitutional Department of Education and a rogue, racist Department of INjustice, dictate to the states and their school districts that they must follow communist doctrine or they won’t get federal tax dollars for their schools, when the issue of education is not even in the federal government’s area of responsibility but the states alone? How is it that an estimated 0.3% of the population who identify as transgender has “rights” that override the rights of the other 99.7%? Care to explain that, Mr. Obama? Or is it now King Obama? I suggest you read Article II and the Tenth Amendment of another well known document, the US Constitution. You clearly have no authority to do this or 50% (+/-) of the things you do in the people’s house. You ignore the concept of “limited government.” You’re about to end your term as president and certainly concerned about your legacy. Well, here is what ordinary, everyday people, who “cling to their Bibles and their guns,” think your legacy will be: THE most narcissistic, self-centered, divisive, incompetent, racist, lying, corrupt, Constitution and law violating, Oath violating president since 1789. On top of that you’re a closet communist and Muslim sympathizer, NOT an American Patriot. You like to brag about all the good things you do, when there are very few, yet cast blame on others when things go wrong. By definition that makes you a very poor leader as well. Space doesn’t permit me to list all your character flaws. So history will record your failure as president and it will be recorded for all time. You have surpassed Jimmy Carter, which is no easy task. I even envision the day when your daughters will change their names trying to avoid any tie with the name “Obama.” With regards to this recent dictate to the states and schools, my hope is that this action will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and millions upon millions of true patriots will stand their ground and tell you, DOE and DOJ to stuff it. We will not comply. And the courts will overrule you as they just did with your sending millions of dollars to Obamacare exchanges as subsidies. Obamacare, another part of your “legacy.” And my hope is that sufficient numbers of citizens will make their voices heard, Congress will act, and the Department of Education will be abolished. Tax dollars from the states to the feds and back again will become nonexistent and no longer act as leverage against the states. Perhaps you’ve now pushed citizens one step too far and it backfires, undoing much of what you call your legacy. Mr. President, you should have been impeached years ago. No president in our history is more deserving and the evidence for justification is overwhelming. If Congress had a spine and weren’t afraid of being labeled racists, that would have been done. Your high crimes and misdemeanors in office far exceed those of Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon. What a legacy! What a guy! What a disaster for our republic! A reply is welcomed but not expected.

bias

patriotpost.us

2017-11-27

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/42136/print

How Do We Restore the Republic?

The Patriot Post ® · How Do We Restore the Republic? If I made an attempt to list the many ills that our republic is suffering through, it would take a three volume set just to list them with no elaboration. And we all know it. So I won’t bore you with that effort. What America really must address are the systemic reasons why this is so. How did we lose control? Why are we on the edge of the cliff and facing tyranny from our ruling class? Do we treat the symptoms or the root causes? Currently we’re treating symptoms. In my judgment, it boils down to two critical points: education and political accountability. We have allowed our education system to be hijacked by leftist propagandists, and we have not held those we elect to public office accountable. These two oversights by the citizenry have exploded in our modern day society leading to our near term implosion. Since the 1960s, slowly but surely, the socialists, Marxists, communists and progressives have infiltrated our colleges and universities and conducted a propaganda campaign under the ruse of “education.” And it’s still ongoing. For an in-depth review of the role the Department of Education (DOE) plays, and the weak efforts to abolish it, going back to the Reagan days, check out this link. You will be horrified and angry but you’ll understand the impact DOE has had, continues to have, and why we have such a weakened education system. We have two generations of mankind who have not been taught our history, our founding documents or their civic duty and obligation to uphold same. Patriotism? Gone! God given rights? Replaced by man’s desires. Diversity, multiculturalism, political correctness, immorality, a self-serving mentality, and “free stuff” trumps the core values that made us the most exceptional nation on earth. These two generations don’t know what they don’t know. They don’t know that they consistently vote for their own serfdom. “While, then, the constituent body retains its present sound and healthful state, everything will be safe. They will choose competent and faithful representatives for every department. It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising the sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin.” —James Monroe, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1817 “The philosophy in the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of the government in the next.” —Abraham Lincoln Since 1913 we have allowed the political class to gain more power, the citizenry to lose more control, accountability of this political class to be severely weakened, and thus we have a career path that egomaniacal narcissists pour their heart and soul into attaining and retaining at all costs. We have allowed an elitist ruling class to dominate our republic when our founding documents clearly set up a system for that to not happen. Our Founders warned us but we have not listened. “If ever time should come when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” —Samuel Adams Two generations were not even taught what our Founders said. There are less voters today who are responsible and informed than there are those who are irresponsible and uninformed. Thus the politicians ignore the informed and pander to the uninformed. Patriot groups, tea parties and other grassroots groups have made valiant efforts to rein in this “establishment” ruling class in both political parties, but little has changed. These groups contain informed patriots, but there’s not enough of them to counterbalance the numbers of the stupefied cohort. It’s like throwing a glass of water on a large three alarm apartment fire. It has no effect. The politicians pacify us with talk but take little meaningful action. We can all cite examples. “OK, so you’ve identified the problem, what’s the solution?” Glad you asked. In my judgment, we MUST attack the political class first. There’s maybe 100,000 (+/-) (elected and appointed) of them across the nation at the state and federal level whereas there are millions upon millions of dumbed-down citizens who vote. A few million who are not even citizens or are deceased. And those of us who are patriots and informed are aging fast. We’re already vastly outnumbered and soon we’ll be gone altogether. Thus time is important. All one has to do is look at the quality of the five remaining presidential candidates, and the one still in the White House, to see that our future is not good under any of them. And look at the millions of adoring, clueless fans each one has under their influence. Hell awaits our nation. We must restore integrity, character, honesty, trustworthiness and honor to the political class. As it is now their priorities once in office are as follows: self, party, special interest groups, big money donors, dumb voters, smart voters. That must change. Where is the Constitution? The Oath of Office? “Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust must be men of unexceptional characters.” —Samuel Adams, 1775 Two things must happen to start the process of reining in the career ruling class politician: Term limits and repeal of the 17th Amendment. These two links give you our Founders’ opinions of limited, accountable government, and a brief history of how we allowed it to get out of control. If sufficient numbers of patriot voters/groups do not stand up and force these two initiatives, only civil war will do so, if that. The glass of water against the raging fire, i.e. supporting one particular candidate, or a bill before Congress won’t solve the problem. Hoping for better results on the next election won’t do it. Again, look at what we have to choose from in the upcoming election. That’s treating symptoms. If members of Congress were term limited, We the People would be in charge. They wouldn’t stay in office until they died or fossilized. New blood could be placed in elective office more frequently. We’d have more choices and, in time, far better choices; statesmen, not politicians. Term limits would attract the statesmen who want to serve and repel career politicians who want to feed their egos. Just ask any politician their opinion of term limits. Their answer says it all — “That’s what elections are for.” And with the 17th gone, state legislatures could select better people for the Senate and recall senators anytime they got out of control and didn’t represent the states. That’s what our Founders set up originally. We must not put another person in Congress who will not sign a pledge to introduce term limits and repeal the 17th Amendment, period! For education, to start with, abolish the Department of Education. Show me in the U.S. Constitution the article/section that says the federal government has any role to play in education. It is a state function, plain and simple, yet we have allowed the feds to dictate our education system as states willingly comply with their wishes so as to get the federal dollars. States are held hostage by the feds on education among other issues for the almighty dollar. Abolishing the Department of Education allows the states to begin to properly educate our youth. States know better than does the Feds unless the goal is globalism, a “new world order,” or a one world government. That is the goal of DOE and most of our federal government now but not of We the Sovereign People. It won’t do much for the two generations already propagandized, but it will stop the bleeding long term. Abolishing DOE simplifies the challenge. Instead of one huge challenge we’d have fifty smaller challenges, but more officials working on them. All three issues will take time just as it took time to arrive in our current state. So what if all these hundreds of grassroots groups, made up of tens of thousands of patriots, came together under one united effort in three initiatives: term limits, repeal of the 17th Amendment, and abolishing the Department of Education — would it help restore our republic? In my judgment, yes, unequivocally. But therein lies yet another dilemma: leadership in all these various groups have their own agenda and seldom are willing to give it up to unite with others to really solve the problem. Got a glass of water? Accountability with our education system, and our system of electing officials, is essential to begin to restore our republic. Otherwise we’re fooling ourselves. It will either be a dictatorship or civil war. And finally…“No people will tamely surrender their liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the contrary, when people are universally ignorant, and debauched in their manners, they will sink under their own weight without the aid of foreign invaders.” —Samuel Adams, 1775 Comments welcomed. (Mr. Reams is a Christian, senior citizen, family man, veteran, conservative and retired small business owner. www.AllianceOfConstitutionalPatriots.com; http://VeteransVent.Wordpress.com)

bias

patriotpost.us

2017-11-27

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/42019/print

Freedom from Religion Foundation: Part III

The Patriot Post ® · Freedom from Religion Foundation: Part III “Freedom from religion” is better understood as switching religion from one brand to another. Secularism and religion sport their own distinctive vocabulary, sacred symbolism, grand metanarrative, exclusive truth exercised by faith, code of ethics/morality, creed, rituals, evangelism, and discipleship. Logically, to discard religion is to separate from all of the above, but secularism instead exhibits them. Rituals (Superstition, De-baptism, Confirmation, Invocations and Prayer) “Luck” smacks of superstition. Even so, Freedom from Religion Foundation co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor is named as one of the “lucky” eighteen percent of fellow members who grew up freethinking. As such, she was “spared baptism by water, fire or Sunday school.” Officially renouncing the primitive rite of baptism to which “the luckless” were so cruelly subjected, participants exchange creeds, dogmas, and alleged superstitions of one belief system with those of another. This they do by obtaining genuine De-Baptismal Certificates. (No joke!) Extracting themselves from any claims of religious affiliation or membership based on baptismal records, secularists join and pay dues (i.e., tithes and offerings) to the fellowship of Freedom from Religion. Congregants aggressively challenge prayer spaces at the University of Iowa, for example; however, following the Supreme Court’s injudicious decision “blessing” sectarian prayer, the Foundation rewards freethinkers who ask for equal time to give secular invocations. Celebratory Music Ministry At the Reason Rally June 2016, celebration of secularism at the Lincoln Memorial will be paired with entertainment and parties that draw hand-clapping, arm raising, closed-eyes enthusiasts eager to sway to the beat of hip-hop artist Baba Brinkman, songwriter-artist Sophia Kameron, and Keith Lowell Jensen of Atheist Christmas fame. This is one Camp Meeting secularists don’t want to miss! Discipleship In accord with the Bible, “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” Even as Christians serve God, secularists are busy about the work of their master, mammon — this, by vigorously contesting what they view as unsavory practices in the public forum and bad legislation. Youth Groups As churches target youth, so do secularists. Last year Thomas Sheedy served as event organizer for the Long Island Atheists (i.e., youth ministry). Furthermore, this high school senior was granted a student activist award of $$5,000 for founding the Secular Student Alliance at Ward Melville High School in East Setauket, New York. Fifty-one students (i.e., converts) expressed interest, a teacher heeded the call to become their adviser (i.e., pastor-teacher), and goals were set (i.e., vision). Giving Testimony; Evangelism with Promise of “A More Excellent Way” To the biblical phrase, “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God,” secularists add, “But the wise person says it out loud.” Through a television ad, for example, Ron Reagan describes himself as “an unabashed atheist, not afraid of burning in hell.” In a newspaper article about his nonbelief, honorary FFRF Board member Daniel C. Dennett wrote, “I’ve come to realize it’s time to sound the alarm.” Heeding the call, evangelists Richard Dawkins, Mike Newdow, and Steven Pinker promote non-theism as their “critical work.” What better way to evangelize than by campaigning through FFRF’s “I’m Secular and I Vote” Campaign? In coordination with other major free thought associations, chapters across the nation spread the word via paid digital media, national TV ads, and efforts to mobilize students on college campuses. Tax Deductible Financial Giving FFRF is a member of Atheist Alliance International, the Secular Coalition for America, and the Richard Dawkins Non-Believers Giving Aid. As is the case with churches and their ministries, all dues and donations on behalf of “nonbelief relief” are tax-deductible. Persecution Assuaged by Promise of a Sweet By and By In Sheedy’s view, “Christians will not find a speck of dust on our nation’s soil where they are persecuted as a group.” Many Christians (myself included) disagree. Nonetheless, having abandoned his childhood indoctrination into Roman Catholicism, Sheedy sought legal aid for his struggles. In his view, every state in the country is under threat of scorn from whom he characterizes as “the losing majority.” Heaven/Hell Secularists reference their own versions of heaven and hell. Indeed, FFRF conventions welcome “hell-bound atheists.” In musing about “Somewhere Over the Rainbow,” freethinking lyricist Yip Harburg wishes upon a star (i.e., prays). Waking up in some ethereal place where clouds are far behind him, Yip’s troubles melt like lemon drops (i.e., heaven). Conclusion For secularists to declare freedom from religion is folly because humanism (whether secular or cosmic) fully qualifies as a religion. As the saying goes, “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.” In America, folks are free to follow the dictates of conscience. When secularists demand a voice in the public arena, they are exercising their First Amendment right. The same right applies to Jews and Christians. In the words of Coretta Scott King, “I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others.” Accordingly, Rosa Parks hoped to be remembered as a person who wanted to be free so others would be free as well. For secularists to deny fellow religionists right to “free exercise” is to undercut and possibly even forfeit their own right. George Washington warned, “If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” A word to the wise: Especially in an election year, even self-serving secularists do well to champion the First Amendment right for all Americans.

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/5-minute-video-1984-isnt-our-dystopian-future-its-our-dystopian-present-will-big-hands-trump-handle-his-job-to-enforce-the-most-important-laws.html/

5-minute video: ‘1984 isn’t our dystopian future, it’s our dystopian present.’ Will ‘Big Hands’ Trump handle his job to enforce the most important laws, or be yet another tragic-comic .01% rogue state

This post was originally published on this site Melissa Dykes’ powerful five minutes for the Daily Sheeple: [embedded content] President Donald Trump has a historic opportunity to end our Emperor’s New Clothes tragic-comedy with just a few statements and actions as the US chief law enforcer. I hope he does. That said, as the world’s comedians make fun of his ridiculous rhetoric, all prima facie evidence suggest he will continue the US dark empire. Documentation of recent US actions and rhetoric for more lie-started and illegal war on Iran: The US is a rogue state empire rather than limited government as a constitutional republic defending inalienable human rights. This deception occurs through “official” and corporate media “fake news” to bullshit (an academic term) the public to believe inversions of what Emperor’s New Clothes obvious facts show to anyone caring to look. The endgame choice of US military and We the People is to end the criminal empire by standing for .01% arrests to protect and defend humanity from lie-started and obviously illegal Wars of Aggression, or to submit as sub-human minions for ongoing viciously psychopathic destruction of all virtue, moral evolution, and eventually all Life. 3-minute video: Police, Military – Was your Oath sincere? [embedded content] Corporate media fakes us into 2 central lies for more illegal war on Iran: ‘threat to Israel’ and ‘nuclear program’ EVEN AFTER 12 YEARS of anyone checking the facts soooo easily refuting these claims as known lies From two previous articles (here, here): US “leaders” threaten more unlawful war (here, here, here, here) on Iran. The following three points document that the ongoing “reasons” to war-murder Iranians are known lies as they are being told. In context, we know now from official US government reports that all “reasons” for war on Iraq were known to be lies as they were told: This is textbook “guilt beyond reasonable doubt” because is is not at all reasonable under any spin to find the above “reporting” some kind of innocent mistake. In fact, claiming that the political leader of a nation threatened to destroy another nation is probably the worst lie than can be told. These deliberate and persistent lies of commission and omission killed up to a million Iranians in recent history, and threatens to kill millions more today. As I’ve continuously reported as an independent journalist and wrote a comprehensive brief for publication and members of Congress beginning in 2006, this is criminal conspiracy between the .01% in politics and media, with both required for these paper-thin criminal lies. This is appropriately analogous to checking the instant replay of a pitch at a baseball game that appeared ten feet over the batter’s head to make sure it really was so outrageously outside the strike-zone that an “official” call that the pitch was a strike is stating a known lie. If it was even possible to be an error when it occurred, it becomes impossible to be an error when it was not “corrected” after ten years of continuous telling. I’ve written articles revealing similar obvious war propaganda identical to what we witnessed before the US attacked Iraq. An example from my article on CNN’s “reporting”: “When we now know that all claims for war with Iraq were known lies as they were told (and verbally explained here), and CNN provides similar innuendo for war by an unsourced alleged report with concerns of what might occur in the future allegedly stated by an unnamed US source reporting on an unnamed foreign source, this is propaganda and not news.” You might need to read the above twice to feel the impact of this lying sack-of-spin .01% choice of public communication thinly veiled as “news.” For another damning example, Mike Wallace of the famed television show 60 Minutes won an Emmy for a contrived interview with President Ahmadinejad in 2006, where Mr. Ahmadinejad’s comments encouraging democracy for Palestinians was edited to appear that he was hostile to Israel. You can verify this “emperor has no clothes” obvious lies and propaganda by watching the brief 5-minute clip for yourself: [embedded content] Israel/US claims Iran threatens to destroy Israel, to “wipe them off the map” With transcript following, these are the points of a 2005 speech by Iranian President Ahmadinejad that Israel and US point to as the source of this claim: What is the issue between Palestine and Israel? It is not a fight over religion or land. People once thought it was impossible to remove the Shah as Iran’s dictator, but it was done. People thought the Soviet government and Saddam’s government would never fall, but they did. He then quoted a religious leader’s words from speeches he gave encouraging Iran’s persistence to oppose the Shah’s occupying regime. The speech’s crystal-clear content and context is to encourage people to persist for justice from Israel’s government because they act as a military-occupying regime over Palestine . . Israel attempts a “trick” in 2005 to pretend to leave Gaza and offer Palestine their own government. The purpose of the trick is to use mischief to keep Palestinians fighting among themselves. The issue of Palestine and Israel will be truly over if Palestinians can get through Israel’s tricks and have political independence from Israel under their own democracy. He closes with emphasis that Israel is tricking Palestinians, and have no intention for Palestine to be their own country. Transcript: from the New York Times (Oct. 30, 2005), and credit to this outstanding report from Information Clearing House: “We need to examine the true origins of the issue of Palestine: is it a fight between a group of Muslims and non-Jews? Is it a fight between Judaism and other religions? Is it the fight of one country with another country? Is it the fight of one country with the Arab world? Is it a fight over the land of Palestine? I guess the answer to all these questions is ‘no.’ … Let’s take a step back. We had a hostile regime in this country which was undemocratic, armed to the teeth and, with SAVAK, its security apparatus of SAVAK [the intelligence bureau of the Shah of Iran’s government; the Shah installed by US overthrow of Iran’s democracy in 1953 with SAVAK trained by US CIA killing thousands of Iranians seeking democracy] watched everyone. An environment of terror existed. When our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian revolution] said that the regime must be removed, many of those who claimed to be politically well-informed said it was not possible. All the corrupt governments were in support of the regime when Imam Khomeini started his movement. All the Western and Eastern countries supported the regime even after the massacre of September 7 [1978] and said the removal of the regime was not possible. But our people resisted and it is 27 years now that we have survived without a regime dependent on the United States. The tyranny of the East and the West over the world should have to end, but weak people who can see only what lies in front of them cannot believe this. Who would believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern Empire? But we could watch its fall in our lifetime. And it collapsed in a way that we have to refer to libraries because no trace of it is left. Imam [Khomeini] said Saddam must go and he said he would grow weaker than anyone could imagine. Now you see the man who spoke with such arrogance ten years ago that one would have thought he was immortal, is being tried in his own country in handcuffs and shackles by those who he believed supported him and with whose backing he committed his crimes. Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks [by Israel on Palestine]. … Recently they [the Israelis] tried a new trick. They want to show the evacuation from the Gaza strip, which was imposed on them by Palestinians, as a final victory for the Palestinians and end the issue of Palestine with the excuse of establishing a Palestinian government next to themselves. Today, they want to involve Palestinians with mischief and trick them into fighting with one another over political positions so that they would drop the issue of Palestine. … The issue of Palestine is not over at all. It will be over the day a Palestinian government, which belongs to the Palestinian people, comes to power; the day that all refugees return to their homes; a democratic government elected by the people comes to power. Of course those who have come from far away to plunder this land have no right to choose for this nation. … If we get through this brief period successfully, the path of eliminating the occupying regime [Israel’s military occupation of Palestine] will be easy and down-hill. I warn all leaders of the Islamic world that they should be aware of this trick.” And from Arash Norouzi’s clear reporting: “So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Farsi: “Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.” That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word “regime.” pronounced just like the English word with an extra “eh” sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase ”rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” (regime occupying Jerusalem). So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want “wiped from the map”? The answer is: nothing.” If you have friends and/or professionals fluent in Farsi, they can confirm this information for you. So: let’s summarize the Iranian president’s speech at the center of US/Israel claims that Iran threatens to “wipe Israel off the map” in historical context: US and Israel political and corporate media “leadership” damn themselves as War Criminals and psychopaths by taking a speech admonishing Israel to act legally and morally with Palestine, and lying that it says to physically “wipe Israel off the map.” To clarify other war propaganda: Israel v. Gaza: The Big Picture Confused About Hamas, ‘rockets’, war in Gaza? Those plus: Israeli occupation, lawful versus unlawful war, Israel illegal weapons, targeting hospitals Facts All US Citizens Need to Know About Israel and Palestine Conclusion: As I’ve often expressed, US military, government (including law enforcement), and millions of Americans (including all California public employees) have Oaths to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” It’s hard to imagine a worse domestic enemy than those who knowingly lie for unlawful attack on foreign countries, resulting in millions of war-deaths. I recommend demanding immediate arrests because war law is so clear with US/Israel violations so “Emperor’s New Clothes” and “Big Lie” obvious, the importance to remove these people from power of literally life-and-death urgency, and because Wars of Aggression is the Orwellian opposite of upholding the US Constitution and the promised peace from all our families’ sacrifices of opposing imperialism, two world wars, and neo-colonialism extending to our world of the present. Demand arrests of Left and Right .01% US “leaders” for ongoing rogue state empire built only and always on “official fake news” Therefore, We the People have an obvious solution: lawful arrests of .01% “leaders” for the most egregious crimes centering in war and lies to start them. This is a 1st Amendment responsibility to maintain our constitutional republic under law rather than what we’ve become with war: “leaders” dictating/saying what we can do completely removed from limitations of the law. Left and Right .01% “leaders” completely violate the rules, and only from public ignorance with corporate media propaganda. The categories of crime include: Wars of Aggression (the worst crime a nation can commit). Likely treason for lying to US military, ordering unlawful attack and invasions of foreign lands, and causing thousands of US military deaths. Crimes Against Humanity for ongoing intentional policy of poverty that’s killed over 400 million human beings just since 1995 (~75% children; more deaths than from all wars in Earth’s recorded history). Looting trillions, such as the Department of “Defense” claiming to have “lost” $$6.5 trillion. US military, law enforcement, responsible citizens, and all with Oaths to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, face an endgame choice: How military and law enforcement choose to honor their Oaths in creative adaptation to the rogue state is up to them. We the People can help with our educated voices in this Emperor’s New Clothes environment whereby these crimes only persist from public ignorance. In just 90 seconds, former US Marine Ken O’Keefe powerfully states how you may choose to voice “very obvious solutions”: arrest the criminal leaders (video starts at 20:51, then finishes this episode of Cross Talk): [embedded content] Our condition requiring YOUR voice is what Benjamin Franklin predicted would be the eventual outcome of the United States. On September 18, 1787, just after signing the US Constitution, Ben met with members of the press. He was asked what kind of government America would have. Franklin warned: “A republic, if you can keep it.” In his speech to the Constitutional Convention, Franklin admonished: “This [U.S. Constitution] is likely to be administered for a course of years and then end in despotism… when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.” – The Quotable Founding Fathers, pg. 39. These warnings extend to all social science teachers of the present: “As educators in the field of history–social science, we want our students to… understand the value, the importance, and the fragility of democratic institutions. We want them to realize that only a small fraction of the world’s population (now or in the past) has been fortunate enough to live under a democratic form of government.” – History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools, pgs. 2, 7-8 Do you have the intellectual integrity and moral courage to at least act with the honesty of a child to speak the Emperor’s New Clothes truth? Remember, I’m just asking you to use your voice in a democratic republic to ask US military and various law enforcement to honor their Oaths and do the job we pay them for: protect and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. There is no greater enemy than those committing treason to war-murder US military by lying them into invasive illegal Wars of Aggression. The converse argument is that US military and law enforcement should not enforce our most important laws, especially not those that annually kill millions, harm billions, and loot trillions. Of course, this argument is Orwellian. More war is planned and propagandized if you do not speak Two minutes of retired General Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO: [embedded content] Video evidence of psychopathic lying to incite war-murders of Iranians: [embedded content] [embedded content] [embedded content] [embedded content] [embedded content] A Call for Truth & Reconciliation, and minions of evil to reclaim their hearts and humanity For those involved in support of US government-sponsored disinformation and massive crimes that annually kill millions, harm billions, and loot trillions of the 99%’s dollars, I invite you to consider the quality of human relationships you wish to work for in creating your/our future. National security and a brighter future is not a function of fear, manipulation, and psychopathic control. Our best security follows cooperation, justice under the law, dignity, and freedom. Surely you recognize that all promised natural rights in America are now gone, and the 99.99% are herded by the .01% as their work animals. Working for your best imagined self-expression of virtue may include a unique contribution from the inside of your agency. You, as Darth Vader and Professor Snape in fictions that are popular for strong resonance to a real story we all want told, can reclaim your hearts and honor to be our heroes. Truly, aren’t you ready now to re-embrace love and honor as your path? Please consider the wisdom of a “Scrooge conversion” to act for the benefit of all humanity rather than your self-proclaimed loveless “masters.” From Dickens’ 1843 text: “Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more; and to Tiny Tim, who did not die, he was a second father. He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world. Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it quite as well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have the malady in less attractive forms. His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him.” 4-minute video of Darth Vader’s choice to serve love, family, and community rather than vicious psychopathic hatred: [embedded content] Public attraction to the stories of Star Wars and the Harry Potter books/movies recognize that our society’s jump to civilized relations for all of us might require support from people within the “dark side” acting as covert agents for building a brighter future. Both Darth Vader (see video) and Professor Snape realized they were only tools of powers above them, things to be manipulated rather than sentient beings of free will. The severest irony is they both recognized their service to the “dark side” included deaths of their loved-ones and even themselves whenever convenient to their “masters.” That was Snape’s ending, although his path was taken with honor to infiltrate the darkness (4-minute video): [embedded content] But that should be an obvious conclusion to those working in the real-world version of these analogies. We see it in the macro picture of millions killed every year through war and poverty, and in micro with individuals who we know. For years, I have recommended Truth and Reconciliation to exchange full truth and return of public assets for no prosecution and a guaranteed provided comfortable retirement. Indeed, I am prepared to speak on the .01%’s corporate media to present this option with full confidence it is the most efficient in ending the crimes and avoiding a violent end-game as the .01% are recognized for who they really are by the 99.99%. “Every day, I saw more evidence about the evils humankind will inflict on their fellow humans to gain or maintain power…What is more, those who choose not to empathize may enable real monsters. For without ever committing an act of outright evil ourselves, we collude with it through our own apathy…If you choose to use your status and influence to raise your voice on behalf of those who have no voice; if you choose to identify not only with the powerful, but with the powerless; if you retain the ability to imagine yourself into the lives of those who do not have your advantages, then it will not only be your proud families who celebrate your existence, but thousands and millions of people whose reality you have helped transform for the better. We do not need magic to change the world, we carry all the power we need inside ourselves already: we have the power to imagine better.” – J. K. Rowling, Harvard Commencement, June 5, 2008. Minions to the evil .01%: does this 1-minute video artistically represent your memories, too? [embedded content] ** Note: I make all factual assertions as a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History, with all economics factual claims receiving zero refutation since I began writing in 2008 among Advanced Placement Macroeconomics teachers on our discussion board, public audiences of these articles, and international conferences. I invite readers to empower their civic voices with the strongest comprehensive facts most important to building a brighter future. I challenge professionals, academics, and citizens to add their voices for the benefit of all Earth’s inhabitants. Carl Herman is a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History; also credentialed in Mathematics. He worked with both US political parties over 18 years and two UN Summits with the citizen’s lobby, RESULTS, for US domestic and foreign policy to end poverty. He can be reached at [email protected] Note: Examiner.com has blocked public access to my articles on their site (and from other whistleblowers), so some links in my previous work are blocked. If you’d like to search for those articles other sites may have republished, use words from the article title within the blocked link. Or, go to http://archive.org/web/, paste the expired link into the box, click “Browse history,” then click onto the screenshots of that page for each time it was screen-shot and uploaded to webarchive. I’ll update as “hobby time” allows; including my earliest work from 2009 to 2011 (blocked author pages: here, here). ** from http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/02/5-minute-video-1984-isnt-dystopian-future-dystopian-present-will-big-hands-trump-handle-job-enforce-important-laws.html

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/the-de-facto-us-al-qaeda-alliance-the-unspoken-reality-of-the-syrian-war.html/

The De Facto US-Al Qaeda Alliance. The Unspoken Reality of the Syrian War

This post was originally published on this site A curious aspect of the Syrian conflict – a rebellion sponsored largely by the United States and its Gulf state allies – is the disappearance in much of the American mainstream news media of references to the prominent role played by Al Qaeda in seeking to overthrow the secular Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad. There’s much said in the U.S. press about ISIS, the former “Al Qaeda in Iraq” which splintered off several years ago, but Al Qaeda’s central role in commanding Syria’s “moderate” rebels in Aleppo and elsewhere is the almost unspoken reality of the Syrian war. Even in the U.S. presidential debates, the arguing between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton has been almost exclusively about ISIS, not Al Qaeda. Though Al Qaeda got the ball rolling on America’s revenge wars in the Middle East 15 years ago by killing several thousand Americans and others in the 9/11 attacks, the terrorist group has faded into the background of U.S. attention, most likely because it messes up the preferred “good guy/bad guy” narrative regarding the Syrian war. For instance, the conflict in Aleppo between Syrian government forces and rebels operating primarily under Al Qaeda’s command is treated in the Western media as simply a case of the barbaric Assad and his evil Russian ally Vladimir Putin mercilessly bombing what is portrayed as the east Aleppo equivalent of Disney World, a place where innocent children and their families peacefully congregate until they are targeted for death by the Assad-Putin war-crime family. The photos sent out to the world by skillful rebel propagandists are almost always of wounded children being cared for by the “White Helmet” rebel civil defense corps, which has come under growing criticism for serving as a public-relations arm of Al Qaeda and other insurgents. (There also are allegations that some of the most notable images have been staged, like a fake war scene from the 1997 dark comedy, “Wag the Dog.”) Rare Glimpse of Truth Yet, occasionally, the reality of Al Qaeda’s importance in the rebellion breaks through, even in the mainstream U.S. media, although usually downplayed and deep inside the news pages, such as the A9 article in Saturday’s New York Times by Hwaida Saad and Anne Barnard describing a rebel offensive in Aleppo. It acknowledges: “The new offensive was a strong sign that rebel groups vetted by the United States were continuing their tactical alliances with groups linked to Al Qaeda, rather than distancing themselves as Russia has demanded and the Americans have urged. … The rebels argue that they cannot afford to shun any potential allies while they are under fire, including well-armed and motivated jihadists, without more robust aid from their international backers.” (You might note how the article subtly blames the rebel dependence on Al Qaeda on the lack of “robust aid” from the Obama administration and other outside countries – even though such arms shipments violate international law.) What the article also makes clear in a hazy kind of way is that Al Qaeda’s affiliate, the recently renamed Nusra Front, and its jihadist allies, such as Ahrar al-Sham, are waging the brunt of the fighting while the CIA-vetted “moderates” are serving in mostly support roles. The Times reported: “The insurgents have a diverse range of objectives and backers, but they issued statements of unity on Friday. Those taking part in the offensive include the Levant Conquest Front, a militant group formerly known as the Nusra Front that grew out of Al Qaeda; another hard-line Islamist faction, Ahrar al-Sham; and other rebel factions fighting Mr. Assad that have been vetted by the United States and its allies.” The article cites Charles Lister, a senior fellow and Syria specialist at the Middle East Institute in Washington, and other analysts noting that “the vast majority of the American-vetted rebel factions in Aleppo were fighting inside the city itself and conducting significant bombardments against Syrian government troops in support of the Qaeda-affiliated fighters carrying out the brunt of front-line fighting.” Lister noted that 11 of the 20 or so rebel groups conducting the Aleppo “offensive have been vetted by the C.I.A. and have received arms from the agency, including anti-tank missiles. … “In addition to arms provided by the United States, much of the rebels’ weaponry comes from regional states, like Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Mr. Lister said, including truck-borne multiple-rocket launcher systems and Czech-made Grad rockets with extended ranges.” The U.S./Al Qaeda Alliance In other words, the U.S. government and its allies have smuggled sophisticated weapons into Syria to arm rebels who are operating in support of Al Qaeda’s new military offensive against Syrian government forces in Aleppo. By any logical analysis, that makes the United States an ally of Al Qaeda. The Times article also includes a quote from Genevieve Casagrande, a Syria research analyst from the Institute for the Study of War, a neoconservative “think tank” that has supported more aggressive U.S. military involvement in Syria and the Middle East. “The unfortunate truth, however, is that these U.S.-backed groups remain somewhat dependent upon the Al Qaeda linked groups for organization and firepower in these operations,” Casagrande said. The other unfortunate truth is that the U.S.-supplied rebels have served, either directly or indirectly, as conduits to funnel U.S. military equipment and ordnance to Al Qaeda. One might think that the editors of The New York Times – if they were operating with old-fashioned news judgment rather than with propagandistic blinders on – would have recast the article to highlight the tacit U.S. alliance with Al Qaeda and put that at the top of the front page. Still, the admissions are significant, confirming what we have reported at Consortiumnews.com for many months, including Gareth Porter’s article last February saying: “Information from a wide range of sources, including some of those the United States has been explicitly supporting, makes it clear that every armed anti-Assad organization unit in those provinces [of Idlib and Aleppo] is engaged in a military structure controlled by [Al Qaeda’s] Nusra militants. All of these rebel groups fight alongside the Nusra Front and coordinate their military activities with it. … “At least since 2014 the Obama administration has armed a number of Syrian rebel groups even though it knew the groups were coordinating closely with the Nusra Front, which was simultaneously getting arms from Turkey and Qatar.” Double Standards The Times article on page A9 also deviated from the normal propaganda themes by allowing a statement by Syrian officials and the Russians regarding their suspension of airstrikes over the past week to permit the evacuation of civilians from east Aleppo and the rebels’ refusal to let people leave, even to the point of firing on the humanitarian corridors: “The [Syrian] government and its [Russian] allies accused the rebels of forcing Aleppo residents to stay, and of using them as human shields.” The “human shields” argument is one that is common when the United States or its allies are pummeling some city controlled by “enemy” forces whether Israel’s bombardment of Gaza or the U.S. Marines’ leveling of Fallujah in Iraq or the current campaign against ISIS in the Iraqi city of Mosul. In those cases, the horrific civilian bloodshed, including the killing of children by U.S. or allied forces, is blamed on Hamas or Sunni insurgents or ISIS but never on the people dropping the bombs. An entirely opposite narrative is applied when U.S. adversaries, such as Syria or Russia, are trying to drive terrorists and insurgents out of an urban area. Then, there is usually no reference to “human shields” and all the carnage is blamed on “war crimes” by the U.S. adversaries. That propaganda imperative helps explain why Al Qaeda and its jihadist comrades have been largely whited out of the conflict in Aleppo. Over the past few years, U.S. regional allies, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, also have shifted their public attitudes toward Al Qaeda, seeing it as a blunt instrument to smash the so-called “Shiite crescent” reaching from Iran through Syria to Lebanon. For instance, in September 2013, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored Syria’s Sunni extremists over President Assad. “The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc,” Oren told the Jerusalem Post in an interview. “We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.” He said this was the case even if the “bad guys” were with Al Qaeda. And, in June 2014, speaking as a former ambassador at an Aspen Institute conference, Oren expanded on his position, saying Israel would even prefer a victory by the brutal Islamic State over continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. “From Israel’s perspective, if there’s got to be an evil that’s got to prevail, let the Sunni evil prevail,” Oren said. Warming to Al Qaeda As Israeli officials shifted toward viewing Al Qaeda and even ISIS as the lesser evils and built a behind-the-scenes alliance with Saudi Arabia and the Sunni states, American neoconservatives also began softening their tone regarding the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. Across the U.S. foreign policy establishment, pressure built for “regime change” in Damascus even if that risked handing Syria to Sunni jihadists. That strategy hit a road bump in 2014 when ISIS began chopping off the heads of Western hostages in Syria and capturing swathes of territory in Iraq, including Mosul. That bloody development forced President Barack Obama to begin targeting ISIS militants in both Iraq and Syria, but the neocon-dominated Washington establishment still favored the Israeli-Saudi objective of “regime change” in Syria regardless of how that might help Al Qaeda. Thus, Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and its jihadist ally, Ahrar al-Sham, faded into the background under the fiction that the anti-Assad forces were primarily noble “moderates” trying to save the children from the bloodthirsty fiends, Assad and Putin. Grudgingly, The New York Times, deep inside Saturday’s newspaper, acknowledged at least part of the troubling reality, that the U.S. government has, in effect, allied itself with Al Qaeda terrorists. [For more background on this issue, see Consortiumnews.com’s "New Group Think for War with Syria/Russia.”] Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). from: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-de-facto-us-al-qaeda-alliance-the-unspoken-reality-of-the-syrian-war/5554020

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/a-child-dies-every-10-minutes-malnutrition-at-all-time-high-in-yemen.html/

A child dies every 10 minutes: Malnutrition at all time high in Yemen

This post was originally published on this site sott.net/news © Abduljabbar Zeyad / Reuters Nearly 2.2 million Yemeni children are in need of urgent aid, as malnutrition is at an “all-time high,” a UNICEF report claims. The figures represent a 200 percent increase from 2014, with severe acute malnutrition affecting 462,000 children. Physically severe acute malnutrition (SAM) is manifested in grotesquely slim bodies and stunted growth, as is the case in Sa’ada governorate in the northwest, which has the world’s highest stunting rates, according to Monday’s document – eight out of 10 children. It is joined by four other governorates, all experiencing alarming rates of SAM. Another 1.7 million children suffer from moderate acute malnutrition. The report estimates that one child dies every 10 minutes from preventable diseases ranging from diarrhea to respiratory tract infections, as well as malnutrition itself. “Malnutrition in Yemen is at an all-time high and increasing,” UNICEF Acting Representative in Yemen, Dr. Meritxell Relano, said. “The state of health of children in the Middle East’s poorest country has never been as catastrophic as it is today.” “Violence and conflict have reversed significant gains made in the last decade in the health and nutrition of Yemeni children. Diseases such as cholera and measles have spread and, with few health facilities functional, such outbreaks are taking a heavy toll on children.” Relano was referring to the progress achieved under UNICEF in 2016, when around four million children under five and suffering from SAM were supplemented with life-saving vitamins and food. Funding for the projects has, however, been scant. Her words come on the heels of an Oxfam report, warning that Yemenis are at risk of running out of food by April – which will mark two years since the start of the current conflict in what is considered to be the poorest country in the Middle East. On the same day, HRW released a report suggesting the United States may be complicit in the suffering, with numerous other UN reports documenting the worsening situation. Saudi Arabia began bombing the country in support of exiled president Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi at the end of March 2015, after Houthi rebels loyal to former president Ali Abdullah Saleh, backed by Iran, took over the capital of Sanaa. “We call on parties to the conflict to give us unhindered access to children in need across the country so we are able to deliver nutrition supplies, treat malnourished children and support Yemen’s health services,” Relano adds, as UNICEF continues to make impassioned pleas for additional funding – $$70 million for 2017 on care for mothers and children. Accessibility remains problematic, as NGOs and aid agencies cannot reach people trapped in high-risk zones. from https://www.sott.net/article/336660-A-child-dies-every-10-minutes-Malnutrition-at-all-time-high-in-Yemen

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/the-yellow-brick-road-to-extinction.html/

The Yellow Brick Road to Extinction

Perhaps you’ve read about how the Hillary Clinton campaign had a strategy to elevate Donald Trump to the status of what they called a Pied Piper candidate. Rather than the Pied Piper, however, it seems that Trump is closer to another fictional figure. Portrayed by the media for years as a wizard of business, like the media-amplified conman in the L. Frank Baum classic, Trump (as both Clinton and Margaret Atwood have recently pointed out) is more like the Wizard of Oz. If Trump is the Wizard, however, who is Hillary? The Wicked Witch? Rather than reproducing sexist cliches, perhaps it’s more fair to cast Clintonism, the Democratic Party, or neoliberalism in toto, as the Witch. And the witch is dead. Ding dong. And (though less visible than the daily anti-Trump demonstrations breaking out across the country) throughout the land the little people are celebrating. They’re celebrating because the ideology that ushered in and maintained wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere, outsourced jobs, spread unemployment and precarious work along with trade deals like NAFTA seems to have been finally put to rest. The crime bills, the surveillance state, the bailouts of banks, the mass incarceration, the austerity and privatization, the stagnation of wages, accompanied by increases in student loan and consumer debt – all capped off by the insult of Obamacare (aka Romneycare), which has done much to enrich the wealthy and further impoverish the little people – all this, it seems, has been halted. But, as in Oz, things are rarely as they appear. And while the Munchkins – and Mnuchins – and others are exulting in the political death of Clintonism, many more see little to celebrate, and much to dread. For though the Witch may be dead, and the staving off of war with Russia and the killing of the TPP are victories for the little people of the planet, the enemy of one’s enemy isn’t necessarily one’s friend. The promises of further deregulation, school privatization, environmental degradation, and tax cuts for the rich made by Trump are hardly victories for the little people, and neither are the racist and xenophobic policies of the Alt-Right (aka white nationalism) taking over the Executive Branch of the United States government. Marking a fundamental departure from post-War norms, the explicitly racist – and implicitly genocidal – goals of Trump and Co. augur persecution, repression, and catastrophe. Hyperbole you say? Exaggeration?Many will no doubt respond that people have been crying wolf for years about anti-semitism and racism. Anyone sufficiently critical of Israel’s policies toward Palestinians, for instance, is labeled and libeled as an anti-Semite. Even Jews who are critical of Israel, like Noam Chomsky, are branded this way. As such, it’s entirely understandable that people should be skeptical about reports concerning the anti-Semitism and racism of Donald Trump and his inner-circle. And yet, there’s a profound difference between honest skepticism and dishonest skepticism; and anyone who examines Trump’s history will see that he has practiced various forms of racist discrimination and scapegoating for decades. Among others, Trump’s chief strategist supports anti-Semites and racists. And the only problem that Jeff Sessions, Trump’s pick for Attorney General, has with the KKK is that some of them smoke pot. (Moreover, let’s not fail to recall the fact that the point of the story of the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.) Whether wolf or wizard, Trump’s history of discrimination is not only old news, it sheds much light on his appointment of Stephen Bannon as his chief strategist. Bannon’s tenure at Breitbart (an Alt-Right, i.e. white nationalist organization) led to stories promoting the most stereotypically racist tropes against women, blacks, Jews, Muslims, Mexicans, and others. And now this proponent of Alt-Right/white supremacy is in charge of strategizing the implementation of policies that include the deportation of millions of immigrants, and banning Muslims – longstanding white nationalist goals of forcible deportation that don’t merely violate basic principles of religious tolerance and respect for human rights; they violate the 1st Amendment, the 4th Amendment, the 14th Amendment, and others. In other words, Trump’s policies baldly contradict the executive’s oath to uphold the constitution. With Trump, such contradictions abound. Trump says, for instance, that he won’t undermine rights recently attained by gays and lesbians. That’s settled law, he says, referring to the Court’s recent recognition of marriage equality. It’s been decided by the Supreme Court, he announces. In the next breath, however, he promises to overturn Roe v Wade, which was also settled by the Supreme Court. It’s even more well-settled. These contradictions hardly cancel one another out. His invective against Muslims, immigrants, and others has already incited violence, emboldening many to attack blacks, Muslims, Latinos, Jews, and other scapegoats. Displacing the generalized anxieties and violence of the capitalist system, hundreds of such attacks have been reported since the election. This isn’t, of course, to suggest that Trump won the election solely because of racism, or that his supporters are mostly racists and sexists, as Clinton and her supporters contend. As many have pointed out, Trump won states – like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida – that Obama won just a few years ago. His success is attributable to the fact that people were disgusted by the historically unlikable Hillary Clinton and her poverty-spreading neoliberal politics. Like the Wizard of Oz, an illusion projected onto a screen, the con man (who just settled a fraud suit stemming from his phony university for $$25 million) fooled a nation. No one’s really sure what he thinks. Trickery and spectacle, he mesmerized the media for months and months with his outrageousness – his ridiculous hair distracting people the way the lure-like growths on the heads of anglerfish fool their prey. Spouting outlandish statements, he cast his spell. And the plutocrat Hillary and her ideologically-blinded cohorts, believing (like George W. Bush apropos Iraq) that victory would be a cakewalk, stumbled into defeat. In spite of her arrogant stupidity, however (her cheating, her contempt for the constituency she needed to win, her choice of Tim Kaine for VP, etc.), we shouldn’t overlook the fact that Trump only won because of an undemocratic technicality. Though he prevailed in the electoral college, he lost the popular vote. As such, though Trump may enjoy a legal victory, his wasn’t a moral one. In many respects his victory is entirely immoral – stemming both from his pledges to promote torture, and other crimes, as well as from the US Constitution’s anti-democratic electoral college. Like the Constitution in general, the electoral college was designed to minimize popular rule by aggrandizing the power of a minority of plantation owners. (Concerned that the North was growing more populous than the South, and that popular elections would diminish their power, slaveowners ratified the Constitution only because it included the electoral system, which counted slaves as 3/5 of a person for the sake of apportioning representatives and electors, and thereby heightened their power and secured their privileges.) Had this institution been extricated from the USA’s legal structure, well, it’s hard to imagine that things would be less undemocratic today. As it stands, though, the electoral college illustrates the degree to which the USA remains little more than an insufficiently-reformed slave state. And here we are, like Dorothy, wondering how to get home. Dorothy, of course, was not alone in Oz. She was aided by, among others, the Scarecrow. Too dumb to recognize that capitalism and democracy are antithetical, is the Scarecrow Paul Krugman? Or is it Nate Silver, and other pollsters, who unwittingly abetted the despised celebrity billionaire’s victory (and the equally despised former Secretary of State’s defeat)? One thing’s for sure, if Trump is the Wizard, and the Democratic Party is the Witch, then Bernie Sanders – who turned on his supporters and supported Clinton – is the Cowardly Lion. And yet, the Cowardly Lion would ultimately develop courage. So, maybe there’s still hope for Bernie. As opposed to many Democrats suggesting we give Trump a chance, Sanders has been speaking out against his repressive designs. Praised by recently hostile Republicans (and by that other notorious wizard, the former Grand Wizard of the KKK, David Duke), Trump has also had a friendly meeting with Obama since winning. It seems the last thing Obama wants is to undermine the peaceful transition of power (even if it’s the power of a white supremacist state – which, after all, the USA has been for most of its history). Notwithstanding the thoroughly racist history of the US, however, it is still more than a little alarming to see white supremacists preparing to set up shop in the White House. And it must prompt us to wonder: what will happen if the system fails to constrain Donald Trump? Thanks to Bush and Obama, Republicans and Democrats, he has an unprecedentedly powerful national security state at his command. And, on the other hand, what if the system succeeds, and prevents Trump from pursuing his infrastructure-building project, his trade re-negotiations, and his easing of relations with Russia, which frighten the military-industrial complex and other aspects of the system more than the more xenophobic aspects of his agenda? If Trump is constrained from pursuing his plans, then what? It isn’t difficult to imagine Trump continuing Obama’s policy of mass deportation. Unlike Obama, though, who’s successfully hidden his policy of deporting millions from the public, one can easily see Trump taking credit for this, satisfying some of his base this way. And let’s not forget, though Trump raises fears about creating registries for Muslims, to some degree registry databases for Muslims already exist. No fly lists are just one part of this. And police surveillance of Muslim communities, in mosques and schools, has been widely known and tolerated since 9/11. Trump could simply continue these as well. All of which is to say, as repression in Standing Rock and other places continues and a deteriorating environment, toothless climate accords, and unabated economic inequality demonstrate, for most people conditions are already intolerable. Even if Trump is prevented from following through on his promises of ethnically cleansing the US, Trump’s position concerning global warming has genocidal implications of its own. Promising to only intensify the poverty, insecurity, violence, and ecological degradation produced by a political-economic system that’s based on the exploitation of the planet and its people, Trump, and the system that produced him, must both be stopped. Of course, an opposition that merely aims to stop Trump will at best succeed in slowing him down. To prevail, an opposition must forcefully push in the opposite direction – toward universal health care, toward an expansion of the public realm as opposed to privatization, toward an aggressive prioritization of rights to water, housing, education, healthy food, a clean environment, and other requirements for human and environmental health, over the demands of profit. And, like other rights are said to be, these rights must be inalienable – not for sale – beyond the market. This should be the goal, the creation of an actually democratic system – an economic as well as a political democracy. Beyond rhetoric, for an opposition to prevail it must not simply proclaim that Trump is “not my president.” It must recognize that Trump (and the system itself) lacks legitimacy. This is not simply because Trump’s opponent obtained over a million more votes than he did, but because Trump promises to violate the very principles that (however much they’ve fallen short historically) justify the United States’ existence in the first place. Beyond Trump, however, the biophagous political-economic system that enabled him to attain so much power must be rejected as well. As the ancient legal maxim has it, the health of the people should be the supreme law. And, because the current global system has spread, and is designed to continue to spread, conditions of disease throughout the world, the entire system is in breach.

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/2011/03/07/idaho-state-senate-members-display-ignorance-of-their-constitutional-responsibilities/idaho-flag/

Robert Laity

Idaho Flag -

Idaho State Senate Members Display Ignorance of Their Constitutional Responsibilities Idaho is the 43rd state and is known for its various gems. Can its legislators be deemed such?

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/2013/03/06/praise-comes-before-the-american-victory-not-after/jesus-in-the-garden-of-gethsemane/

Robert Laity

Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane -

Praise Comes BEFORE the American Victory, Not After Jesus endured the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane knowing that he was going to be tortured and killed for the sins of the world

unknown

thesleuthjournal.com

2017-11-27

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/america-the-pitiful-who-will-dare-to-wake-up-video/

Zen Gardner

America The Pitiful: Who Will Dare To Wake Up? (VIDEO)

As many wonderful Americans as there are who have snapped out of the trance and are doing fabulous things to awaken and empower others as well as expose the truth of what’s really going on, I’m dumbfounded at the willful abject ignorance, consumerism, apathy and shallow selfishness of the vast majority. All I need to make my point is the following video. Many of you have no doubt seen some of Mark Dice’s “man on the street” surveys, but this one takes the cake, or should I say bar of chocolate – this time over a 10 oz. bar of silver bullion currently worth $$150: I rest my case. As powerful as it is and perhaps he does this in some manner I don’t know, but it would be great if he handed people an envelope for them to open later with an explanation of what just transpired. It would be eye opening and helpful for them to know that they just passed up a silver bar worth 150$$ right in front of a Coin and Precious Metals Exchange shop and they could have waltzed in there and redeemed it – or better yet kept it for when the dollar turns to dust. Still, the entranced ignorance is stunning. Don’t Give Up Trying It only takes the right conditions, some initiative, and a little wisdom to get someone started on, or encouraged along, the path to awakening on any and all levels. Never give up trying, but do definitely avoid the full, frozen cups and armored souls who will just waste your time, suck you dry and discourage you. Learning to find that introductory opening is a bit of a skill but it’s learnable. Dropping hints, being honest but not brutally, speaking up instead of going along with what you know is wrong, all lead to finding those who have a hunger to know what’s really going on and are starting to get it. It can be extremely inspiring, and as I’ve often said and many have found out, there are sincere, open, receptive and massively awakened people everywhere. Just don’t take things at face value. The societal controls and behavior conformity is so strong it’s easy to do that, but it’s wrong and very misleading. This goes for anywhere in the whirled. It’s a way of life. Another really cool thing that happens is you become known for your perspective and those you’ve touched will often refer people they think would be receptive to what you have to say, either to you or suggest you contact them even when they themselves don’t agree with you but like you and your sincerity. Passing It On That’s how it works. One interaction at a time. Then if you also write about it in an article or on a blog or website or post it in social media it reaches that many more! People talk about paying it forward, but what more profoundly empowering thing can we pass on than the truth? Keep on keeping on. You’ll encourage the heck out of yourself the more you respond and engage in this. And the rewards that come from helping someone along the path are immeasurable, both for them and yourself and an endangered world in constant flux that needs all the vibrational uplifting we can help facilitate. That’s a win win and win! “Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth!” – Henry David Thoreau Love always, Zen By Zen Gardner at ZenGardner.com.

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/trump-v-cnn-republicans-democrats-at-odds-when-it-comes-to-trustworthiness-poll.html/

Trump v CNN: Republicans & Democrats at odds when it comes to trustworthiness – poll

This post was originally published on this site RINF The vast majority of Republicans believe Donald Trump is more trustworthy than CNN while almost all Democrats believe the opposite, according to a new poll. It comes as Trump continues to label CNN as a “fake news” outlet. The poll, conducted by SurveyMonkey and reported by Axios, found that 89 percent of Republicans believe Trump – who has long accused CNN of reporting “fake news” – is more trustworthy than the media outlet. I am extremely pleased to see that @CNN has finally been exposed as #FakeNews and garbage journalism. It’s about time! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 1 июля 2017 г. On the other hand, and perhaps predictably, 91 percent of Democrats believe CNN is more trustworthy than Trump. Independents also sided with the Democrats overall, with CNN coming out 15 points ahead among those surveyed. The president also lost out to The Washington Post and The New York Times, with the newspapers being considered more trustworthy by 9 points, among all adults surveyed. Mainstream American news networks ABC, CBS, and NBC also fared better than Trump in the poll, winning by an 11 point margin. Sorry folks, but if I would have relied on the Fake News of CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, washpost or nytimes, I would have had ZERO chance winning WH — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 6 июня 2017 г. However, Republicans alone showed a similar trust in Trump when compared to those news channels. In addition, 33 percent of Republicans said they only received their news from Fox. The findings come against a backdrop of an ongoing battle between Trump and mainstream media, with CNN being his most targeted outlet. The president’s criticism of CNN appeared to be vindicated late last month, when three of its journalists resigned following the retraction of a story on an alleged Congress investigation into a “Russian investment fund with ties to Trump officials.” READ MORE: 3 CNN journalists behind retracted Russia-Trump story resign Trump addressed the scandal on Twitter multiple times. Wow, CNN had to retract big story on “Russia,” with 3 employees forced to resign. What about all the other phony stories they do? FAKE NEWS! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 27 июня 2017 г. Fake News CNN is looking at big management changes now that they got caught falsely pushing their phony Russian stories. Ratings way down! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 27 июня 2017 г. Staying with Twitter, the poll found that 89 percent of Democrats approve of Trump’s use of the social media site along with 38 percent of Republicans. And when respondents were asked to describe Trump’s tweets, the majority (47%) of all adults surveyed chose the word “undignified.” Thirty-four percent called them “mean,” while 26 percent thought they were “entertaining.” A very small number, (7%), said they believed the tweets were “presidential.” Of the Republicans surveyed, the majority said Trump’s tweets were “truthful.” Meanwhile, SurveyMonkey SVP Jon Cohen told Axios that “a red flag for Democrats continues to be a perception that Trump is isolating himself from the GOP base with his tweets.” Cohen also said the survey is significant and relevant because “the fight between the White House and major media outlets has made the question of truthfulness just as partisan-tinged as healthcare or other policies.”

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/2014/04/14/the-thunder-down-under-in-the-battle-at-bundy-ranch-no-bull%e2%80%8f/crj-bundy-cattle/

Robert Laity

CRJ Bundy cattle -

“The THUNDER Down UNDER” in the Battle at Bundy Ranch – No Bull!‏

unknown

thesleuthjournal.com

2017-11-27

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/copyright-infringement-claim-filed-by-sandy-hook-charity-kingpin/

James Tracy

Copyright Infringement Claim Filed By Sandy Hook Charity Kingpin

On September 17 MHB reported on a copyright infringement claim filed with Facebook by an anonymous party against the “Sandy Hook Hoax” Fb page alleging ownership of the Lenie Urbina/Avielle Richman photographs. The copyright claimant has been revealed in the emails below as one Thomas Bittman, co-founder of the lucrative “Sandy Hook Promise” charity. The 501(c)3 has been a key proponent of gun control and mental health protocols that it argues will curb mass shootings, while pulling on the heartstrings of America to the tune of tens of millions of dollars in the wake of the December 14, 2012 Sandy Hook massacre event. What’s significant here is whether Bittman actually holds the copyright to the images in question, and if he’s not just prompting Facebook to abuse the entire DMCA process intended to address legitimate copyright claims. If so, Bittman has committed perjury and is subject to being sued for filing a false copyright infringement claim. “If you send a cease-and-desist letter to an infringer,” under DMCA, there is a risk that the infringer may file a lawsuit in the infringer’s jurisdiction naming you as a defendant and seeking a declaratory judgment that your copyright is invalid. One recent court decision found that the sending of a single cease-and-desist letter into the state was enough to subject the defendant to personal jurisdiction in that state. If you send a DMCA takedown notice that is both false and meant in bad faith (such as to harass, or doesn’t state a real claim), you have committed perjury. Though unlikely, if the party you sent the takedown notice to decided to pursue this in court, you could face all of the consequences that your state imposes on people who lie in court. Most MHB readers will likely agree that such legal action against parties that have sought to terrorize the US citizenry and enrich themselves on an entirely dubious incident is richly deserved. We do hope Mr. Anthony Mead pursues this matter to the fullest extent provided by law. From: Facebook <ip+v8jbrna.aeazbsxxduorg@ > Date: September 21, 2015 at 6:16:46 PM EDT To: Anthony Mead Subject: Re: Copyright Counter Complaint: #1631982620387595 Reply-To: Facebook <ip+v8jbrna.aeazbsxxduorg@ > Hi, Thank you for your email. As you know, we received a claim of alleged rights infringement regarding the removed content. However, the content in question is outside the scope of the counter-notification provisions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. § 512(g). If you believe that this content should not have been removed from Facebook, you can contact the complaining party directly to resolve your issue: Report #: 263811150419388 Contact Information: Name – Thomas Bittman Email – tjbittman@ Please keep in mind that the complaining party is not required to respond to you. If an agreement is reached to restore the reported content, please have the complaining party email us at ip@ with their consent and the original report number of their complaint. Thanks, Laurel Intellectual Property Operations Facebook —–Original Message—- From: Anthony Mead To: Subject: Copyright Counter Complaint: #1631982620387595 Name: Anthony J Mead Mailing Address: _______________ Hollywood FL, 33026 USA Telephone: 954-295—– Email: Absmover@ Please provide URL(s)/description leading to where the content appeared on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HoaxAtSandyHook By submitting this counter-notice, you:consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the judicial district in which your address is located, or if your address is outside the United States, for any judicial district in which Facebook, Inc. may be to accept service of process from the party who reported your content, or that party’s under penalty of perjury that you have a good faith belief that the material in question was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification.: I Agree Electronic Signature: Anthony J Mead —–End Original Message—– Professor James F. Tracy is an Associate Professor of Media Studies at Florida Atlantic University. James Tracy’s work on media history, politics and culture has appeared in a wide variety of academic journals, edited volumes, and alternative news and opinion outlets. James is editor of Union for Democratic Communication’s Journal Democratic Communiqué and a contributor to Project Censored’s forthcoming publication Censored 2013: The Top Censored Stories and Media Analysis of 2011-2012. Additional writings and information are accessible at memoryholeblog.com.

unknown

thesleuthjournal.com

2017-11-27

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/endless-us-war-on-afghanistan/

Stephen Lendman, Arlene Lane

Endless US War On Afghanistan

America came to Afghanistan to stay. Occupation is permanent. So is endless war. Washington’s December 2014 ceremonial end of over 13 years of war was phony, a thinly veiled PR stunt – including Obama saying “our combat mission in Afghanistan is ending, and the longest war in American history is coming to a responsible end.” Naked aggression was planned long before 9/11 – despite bin Laden and Taliban officials having nothing to do with what happened. US state-sponsored terrorism bore full responsibility. Endless US regional wars continue. So does America’s combat mission in Afghanistan. Obama lied saying it ended. Last Monday, Taliban forces captured Kunduz, Afghanistan’s northern capital, a former Taliban stronghold, after besieging the city for months, embarrassing the US-controlled Ashraf Ghani puppet regime. It promised to counterattack. Interior ministry spokesman Sediq Sediqqi said Kunduz “collapsed into the hands of the Taliban.” Government forces fled in the face of their advance. UN staff were evacuated before they arrived. Taliban officials issued a statement online, saying: “Mujahedeen are not thinking of harassing or deriding anyone but have intentions of respecting and bringing serenity to their lives. Mujahedeen are not thinking about retribution but have come with a message of peace.” Taliban fighters seized regime buildings, a local hospital, Kunduz airport, and freed hundreds of prisoners. The city is about 150 miles north of Kabul near Tajikistan’s border. It’s a major northern transportation hub. Thousands of US troops remain in Afghanistan despite Obama claiming an end to Washington’s combat role. On Tuesday, US warplanes struck Taliban positions around Kunduz. NATO spokesman/US Army Colonel Brian Tribus said “US forces conducted an air strike in Kunduz today to eliminate a threat to coalition and Afghan forces operating in the vicinity of Kunduz.” He provided no further details. Afghan troops launched a counterattack. Reuters quoted State Department spokeswoman Katy Bondy saying “(t)he situation remains fluid, and we are continuing to follow the situation closely.” She said nothing about America’s bombing attack it prefers not discussing. It’s hard concealing. US media reported it, providing few details. It’s unclear where things stand at the moment. Battles take time to unfold. Years of US aggression haven’t deterred Taliban fighters from trying to regain control of their country. Afghan civilians suffer most – victims of US imperial policy. Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected]. His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”. www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html Visit his blog site at www.sjlendman.blogspot.com.

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/lavrov-to-meet-with-nato-chief-stoltenberg-in-munich-on-feb-17.html/

Lavrov to meet with NATO chief Stoltenberg in Munich on Feb. 17

This post was originally published on this site Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will meet with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in Munich on Feb. 17, the ministry’s spokeswoman, Maria Zakahrova, said on Feb. 15. “Sergey Lavrov is set to meet with the NATO Secretary General on the sidelines of the Munich security conference,” Zakharova said, adding that the minister may also meet with his Iranian counterpart Javad Zarif. She also said that Lavrov will hold bilateral meetings in Munich with EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini and Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Source: TASS Read more: Stoltenberg says plans to meet Lavrov during Munich Security Conference from http://rbth.com/news/2017/02/15/lavrov-nato-stoltenberg-munich_702518

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/tag/political-intervention/

Robert Laity

political intervention Archives -

HOW CORRUPT AND FRAUDULENT IS THE GOVERNMENT “SCIENCE” THAT DENIES NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE? by Paul Driessen and Ron Arnold, ©2016 (Apr. 16, 2016) — A self-appointed coalition of Democrat state attorneys general is pursuing civil or criminal racketeering actions against ExxonMobil, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and other organizations. The AGs claim the groups are committing fraud, […]

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/what-will-bernie-delegates-do-in-philadelphia-an-interview-with-jeff-cohen.html/

What Will Bernie Delegates Do in Philadelphia? An Interview with Jeff Cohen

This post was originally published on this site The first major survey of Bernie Sanders delegates reveals big concerns about Hillary Clinton’s pending choice of a vice presidential candidate, with many delegates expressing their willingness to publicly denounce prospective running mates and even protest on the convention floor. The nationwide survey was conducted by the Bernie Delegates Network, an initiative independent of the Bernie Sanders campaign, launched by RootsAction.org in partnership with Progressive Democrats of America. I spoke to Jeff Cohen of RootsAction after they released the survey results. Ann Garrison: Jeff Cohen, could you describe the Bernie Delegates Network? Jeff Cohen: The Bernie Delegates Network is an unofficial, independent network of Bernie delegates to facilitate communication between them and among them. It was initiated by RootsAction.org in partnership with the Progressive Democrats of America. AG: So, there are 1900 Bernie delegates. How many of them are part of the network now? JC: We already have contact with 950 delegates out of the 1900 total Bernie delegates and we think before the Philadelphia Convention we’ll have 200 or 300 more. AG: OK, and what did they tell you in this first survey? JC: Well, the survey asked delegates how they would react to Hillary Clinton’s choice for vice president. And a vast majority said that who she chooses for vice president is important to them. And so we ran by, in this survey, a half dozen of the names that have been bandied about in the mainstream press as possible running mates with Hillary Clinton, and the Bernie delegates responded pretty universally that none of these candidates were acceptable. On the list is Senator Tim Kaine whom the media are hawking as possibly the front runner to become Hillary Clinton’s vice president. He’s got a spotty record on abortion rights, he strongly supported Virginia’s right-to-work law, the anti-union law that’s in the State of Virginia when he was the governor. It’s hard to find a Senator who’s more moderate to conservative, more corporate than Hillary Clinton but Senator Tim Kaine may be that person. He’s a supporter of fast track Trans-Pacific Partnership as a Senator. And the survey of our delegates found that nearly 90% of those who responded said Tim Kaine is not acceptable. The same thing for Senator Warner, another Senator from Virginia, who voted for the Keystone-XL Pipeline. He voted for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and he’s been bandied about in the media as a possible VP. Another possible VP for Hillary Clinton in the media has been Julian Castro. He’s the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development now, and Castro came out for the Trans-Pacific Partnership even after Hillary Clinton said that she was coming out against it. Castro’s been very close with developers, very close with big business. So the Hillary VP choice could be a focal point of contention in Philadelphia at the Democratic Convention because a large number of these people who said to Hillary Clinton’s likely choices for vice president, “This person’s unacceptable, this man’s unacceptable, this man’s unacceptable.” A large number of them said they’re willing to denounce these choices publicly in Philadelphia and they’re ready to engage in nonviolent but emphatic protest during Hillary Clinton’s speech in Philadelphia. AG: In his own recorded conference call with his delegates, Senator Sanders discouraged fights on the convention floor over issues already lost in the platform committee, including support for Medicare for All, a ban on fracking, opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership and language regarding the Middle East, probably Palestine in particular. He said that having failed in the platform negotiations, they have zero chance of passing on the convention floor. Do you think the Bernie delegates will agree not to take these issues to the convention floor? JC: I think all of these delegates that are in touch with each other through the Bernie Delegates Network will be in touch with each other in Philadelphia at the convention. And we haven’t surveyed the delegates, but it’s my understanding that a lot of delegates want to make a fight over some of these platform planks that are not progressive whether the official Bernie campaign is for that or not. Now the rules are already set; they’re a little bit rigged, and no one expects that a progressive plank that’s not already in the platform will pass, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Bernie delegates tried to make a fight of it in spite of the obstacles. AG: The press release implies that the vice presidential choice alone is a make or break point when it says, “Can any Democratic presidential candidate afford to do without solid support from this base in a general election? That is the question Secretary Clinton and her advisers should think long and hard about.” Jeff Cohen: Oh, there’s no doubt about it. Who she chooses for vice president may determine whether she wins the election or not. And we know today that Donald Trump chose, as his running mate, someone from the conservative base of the Republican Party, someone who’s hugely popular with the conservative base and someone who endorsed his top opponent, Ted Cruz. And in Trump’s news conference, he said he did that for party unity, to win, and it strikes me as smart strategy. So I think it’s obvious that if Hillary Clinton wants to try to make a center/left alliance to defeat Trump, she would choose a vice president who’s progressive, perhaps someone who endorsed Bernie, or at least someone who can galvanize the progressive base of the Democratic Party. Remember, nearly 45% of Democratic voters and caucus goers supported Bernie. So nearly half of the party has said, “No, we’re progressives.” If she chooses a corporatist, a centrist, like Senator Tim Kaine from Virginia, or the HUD Secretary Castro, or the Senator from New Jersey Cory Booker, or the Senator from Virginia Mark Warner, if she goes in that direction, we could have a replay of 2000, where Al Gore was running for president and he did something very difficult. He found someone even more conservative than him to be his vice president and that was Joe Lieberman, who within a few years, had left the Democratic Party to become a supporter of Bush/McCain and Iraq War fanaticism. So it’s very clear that smart strategy would tell Team Clinton that you’ve got a major problem with millions of voters on the left who are not happy with you and are watching who you choose as your vice presidential running mate very very closely. AG: Do you have a plan to survey on other issues as the network grows? JC: Yes, there is a survey that’s gone out about people demanding a roll call vote, a full roll call vote at the convention, where there are nominating speeches and they go state by state and people cast their votes for Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. I’ve already sent tentative results for that to the Sanders campaign and it’s been received. Delegates want to see a full roll call between Hillary and Bernie Sanders on the convention floor, and I’m sure there will be other surveys and conference calls. AG: Are you going to survey the Bernie Delegates Network about how many are just going to cast a protest vote before they leave the party? JC: There are only so many things that the network can be surveyed on in the remaining time we have. So you’re saying how many of them are going to vote for Hillary? AG: We all know there’s a Bernie or Bust movement, and it may include some of these delegates. JC: If it does, we haven’t heard from a lot of them. Maybe there were two or three that were saying, “Why are you asking me about the vice president? I’m not voting for her no matter who she chooses.” But that was just two or three out of hundreds. Look at the opening question. The opening question is, “Do you consider her choice of vice president to be very important, important, somewhat important to you? And the vast majority of respondents said it’s important. So obviously a lot of people want to do their part to defeat Trump. Now the people that said unimportant – and that was a small minority – we can’t know yet whether they think that her choice of the VP is unimportant because they’re not voting for her, or it’s unimportant, because they don’t know what the hell else they’re gonna do, so they’ve gotta support the Democrats against Trump. Are you following me? AG: Sure, but I’m also considering the possibility that the way the questions are asked might be determining the answers. JC: Again, I assume there are some Bernie or Busters but they seem to be a small group. AG: Will you ask the question? JC: What question? AG: How many delegates are going to Philadelphia simply to cast a protest vote? JC: What do you mean a protest vote? AG: For example, in 1968, a number of delegates went to the convention to cast their protest votes for Eugene McCarthy or one of the other peace candidates,. Then they cast their protest votes for the platform plank calling for the withdrawal from Vietnam, which went down 1,576 to 1,041. Of course we don’t have records of how those delegates and their constituencies ultimately voted at the ballot box, but the convention was in shambles, with the peace delegates singing “We Shall Overcome” and the house band playing “Happy Days Are Here Again” to drown them out. Then the peace delegates left the hall to hold a candlelight march. Some argue that Nixon prolonged the war more than Humphrey would have, some not, and we’ll never know that either. JC: OK, I see what you’re saying. AG: I get mail from a group called Bernie or Bust. I can’t tell whether any of them are Bernie delegates, but they’ve been saying they plan to hold a mass de-registration from the Democratic Party event in Philadelphia. JC: How’re you gonna do that in Philadelphia if you live in New York? AG: I haven’t heard them say how they plan to do it, but I’m in California and I know I could do it on my phone if I were in Philadelphia. I changed my own registration online recently and it took me about five minutes. JC: I’m on Facebook and I see all the Bernie or Bust stuff. I met them in Chicago at the People’s Summit. I don’t know how many of them are delegates, but I think there’s a lot of gradation amongst the Bernie or Bust people. Some may just refuse to work for Hillary’s election. Others may refuse to vote for her and instead vote for Jill Stein and the Green Party. AG: Thanks for sharing the survey and your further thoughts about this. JC: You’re welcome. From http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/20/what-will-bernie-delegates-do-in-philadelphia-an-interview-with-jeff-cohen/

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/why-netanyahu-is-upset-about-un-security-council-resolution-2334-the-total-illegality-of-israels-settlements.html/

Why Netanyahu Is Upset About UN Security Council Resolution 2334: The Total Illegality of Israel’s Settlements

This post was originally published on this site Members of the world community finally reached a limit witnessing Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. The United Nations Security Council presented a peace offering to Palestinians days before the official birthday of Jesus in what is now occupied Bethlehem: resolution 2334, with a “vision of a region where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders.” Ironically, the seemingly toothless resolution’s main notoriety comes from Netanyahu’s fury at its passage. The resolution, which aims to bring a lasting peace to Israelis and Palestinians based on international law, comes at a time when Israel seemed to be in the “mop-up” phase of its theft of Palestinian resources (such as water and gas) and its annexation of whatever it wanted of the Palestinian territories it has occupied since 1967: East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. The media censorship of Israel’s brutality towards the Palestinians has made their horrific situation virtually invisible to the western public, allowing Israel to ignore — besides basic human decency — virtually all international laws protecting Palestinian human, civil and property rights. Israel has been ethnicly cleansing East Jerusalem, which it is trying to annex; it is maintaining apartheid in the occupied West Bank according to the 2012 Russell Tribunal, and committing genocide against Gazans according to the 2013 Kuala Lumpur tribunal. Despite such findings, Israel’s allies are attempting to criminalize speech critical of Israel or advocating redress. What the resolution calls for Resolution 2334 lays out the Security Council’s intention to start diplomatic meetings to create a lasting peace based on “the relevant United Nations’ resolutions, and other peace agreements and initiatives”, along with periodic follow-up reports. More specifically, resolution 2334 calls for: Israel to “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem” because of their illegality; the international community to recognize the difference “in its dealings” between Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories; immediate steps to prevent all violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as acts of provocation and destruction; calls for accountability in this regard, both parties to act on the basis of international law, including international humanitarian law… ; and efforts aimed at achieving, without delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, and … an end to the Israeli occupation. Implications The resolution confirms the total illegality of Israel’s settlements; the wording “completely cease all settlement activities” might also be interpreted to mean the dismantling of the settlements. If Israel refuses to abide by the resolution’s call to end all settlement activity, the Palestinians can pursue cases against Israeli leaders at the International Criminal Court. By calling for the international community to differentiate between Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories “in its dealings“, the UN is calling for an end to trade agreements(such as Canada’s) that support the financial viability of the settlements by allowing Israel to mislabel products produced in the settlements as from “Israel” in order to facilitate sales and avoid duties. The call to prevent “all violence against civilians, including acts of terror … provocation and destruction”, is a stunning rebuke of Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians and the destruction of their homes and properties. The currently-used definition of terrorism*, which excludes state terrorism (and thus actions by Israel or Hamas) includes the actions of Jewish settlers, the major source of terrorism in Israel. The call for accountability is a call for an end to Israel’s impunity for crimes including its massive attacks on Gaza as well as its almost daily attacks on Palestinian farmers, fishermen and other civilians. The call for “both parties” to “act on the basis of …. international humanitarian law” is a demand that Israel, as the Occupying Power, respect the Fourth Geneva Convention, the law governing the treatment of civilians under military occupation. Israel’s obligations are not only to protect the welfare of those civilians, but to refrain from moving its population into occupied territory or retaining the territory under any circumstances. The resolution calls for efforts to end Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory, which Israel would find costly. Its confinement of millions of Palestinians is hugely profitable, largely because the world community has assumed Israel’s legal obligation to provide for their food, education and other humanitarian needs. Israel skims off humanitarian aid money and forces funds to be converted into the shekel, propping up its currency. Palestinians are used as cheap and disposal labor in Israel’s industrial zones and as guinea pigs for its weapons testing. The West Bank, from which Israel gets much of its water and farm land, is used for Israel’s toxic dumps. This resolution’s intent to follow up on final status peace negotiations is a major problem for Israel because the next world conference on Israel/ Palestine is on January 15th, when President Obama is still in office. If a resolution is passed that sets parameters such as the issue of Israel’s borders, the status of Jerusalem and the Palestinian right of return, along with a time-limit for the negotiations, it would be almost impossible for Donald Trump to intervene. Trump would have to get the support of at least nine countries in the Security Council behind a new resolution that would overturn the offending resolution — and then ensure that the permanent members, including Russia and China, would not veto it. Conclusion Israel’s violations of UN SC Resolution 2334 — which calls for an end to the settlements, steps to prevent acts of violence against civilians, and for accountability — justify boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel, particularly of products from Israel’s settlements. Israel’s ongoing violations should also end the current efforts to criminalize speech critical of Israel. People of conscience can not be said to be guilty of “racism”, “anti-Semitism”, or “hate speech” when they describe Israel’s defiance of this resolution and of international laws — or advocate economic responses to facilitate a just peace. Hopes for an ending to the Palestinian plight now hinge on the passage of a follow-up resolution at the January 15th conference that will call for final status negotiations on Israel’s borders, the status of Jerusalem and the Palestinian right of return — with set time limits. The United Nations SC resolution 2334 demonstrates that the world body retains its credibility in calling for justice. The UN has been responsible for the Palestinian tragedy; members must now take responsibility for ending it. The definition of “terrorism” presumably the one used by the annual Global Index of Terrorism: The Global Terrorism Index uses data supported by the Department of Homeland Security which includes incidents meeting the following criteria: 1. The incident must be intentional – the result of a conscious calculation on the part of a perpetrator. 2. The incident must entail some level of violence or threat of violence — including property violence, as well as violence against people 3. The perpetrators of the incidents must be sub-national actors. This database does not include acts of state terrorism. In addition to this baseline definition, two of the following three criteria have to be met in order to be included in the START database from 1997: ….The violent act was aimed at attaining a political, economic, religious, or social goal. ….The violent act included evidence of an intention to coerce, intimidate, or convey some other message to a larger audience (or audiences) other than the immediate victims. ….The violent act was outside the precepts of international humanitarian law. (Vision of Humanity) from: from: http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-netanyahu-is-upset-about-un-security-council-resolution-2334-the-total-illegality-of-israels-settlements/5565731

bias

truepundit.com

2017-11-27

https://truepundit.com/watch-tom-cotton-warns-iranian-threats-against-israel-are-growing/

True Pundit Staff

Tom Cotton Warns Iranian Threats Against Israel Are Growing

Tom Cotton Warns Iranian Threats Against Israel Are Growing FOLLOW US! Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK), a leading member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and Senate Intelligence Committee, warned on Monday that the Iranian regime’s threats against Israel are growing through the expansion of its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)’s political and military footprint across the Middle East. Iran’s “aggression against Israel has become much more widespread,” Cotton said during a conference on counterterrorism hosted by the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC. “It’s a very dangerous advance that Iran is making through northern Iraq and southern Syria.” “For instance, Iran is now providing not just rockets, it’s helping to build precision-guided munitions factories in Syria, on the border with Lebanon, where Hezbollah can manufacture its own precision-guided munitions to use against Israel,” Cotton reportedly said.

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/5337-u-s-airstrikes-against-syria-when-is-direct-military-intervention-not-direct-military-intervention.html/

5,337 U.S. Airstrikes against Syria: When Is “Direct Military Intervention” Not Direct Military Intervention?

This post was originally published on this site “President Obama has long refused to approve direct military intervention in Syria,” the New York Times asserted in an editorial (9/29/16) about “Vladimir Putin’s Outlaw State.” That’s a peculiar thing to say, given that the Times regularly covers the United States’ ongoing direct military intervention in Syria. Since 2014, according to official Pentagon figures, the US has carried out 5,337 airstrikes in Syria. According to the monitoring group Airwars, these airstrikes (along with a few hundred strikes by US allies) havelikely killed between 818 and 1,229 Syrian civilians. Nor is direct US military intervention in Syria limited to aerial attacks. In May 2015, the New York Times (5/16/15) reported on a combat raid by US Delta Force commandos in eastern Syria. Later that year, the Times (10/30/15) observed that President Barack Obama had announced he was sending (in the paper’s words) “several dozen” special forces troops on an “open-ended mission” inside Syria. This somehow does not meet the New York Times‘ definition of “direct military intervention in Syria.” Just a couple of weeks ago, the Times (9/16/16) wrote about three dozen more special forces going to aid Turkish troops inside Syria. Officially, these will have an “advise and assist” role—but the Times (12/27/15) has elsewhere noted the frequent US practice with regard to special forces of “resorting to linguistic contortions to mask the forces’ combat role.” The Times, for its part, is engaging in some kind of linguistic contortion of its own to make none of this qualify as “direct military intervention in Syria.” Presumably it has something to do with the airstrikes and special forces not being aimed at the Syrian government of Bashar Assad, but at the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS—a rival to Assad’s power in Syria that the US is semi-officially at war with, even as Washington providesarms and training to other armed groups trying to overthrow Assad. Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org. You can follow him on Twitter at@JNaureckas. from: http://www.globalresearch.ca/5337-u-s-airstrikes-in-syria-when-is-direct-military-intervention-not-direct-military-intervention/5548556

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/boeing-737-crash-moment-fz981-goes-down-caught-on-cctv-video.html/

Boeing-737 crash: Moment FZ981 goes down caught on CCTV (VIDEO)

From: https://www.rt.com/news/336242-boeing-moment-crash-cctv/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=RSS This kind of post is a link article. That indicates that you need to go to the url overhead in order to read the complete article. Below you should get a small recap. The video shows the exact moment of the tragic Boeing-737 crash. It was captured on CCTV in Rostov-on-Don, Russia. Read Full Article at RT.com Stay refreshed with the most current advancement of the problems regarding Ukraine through registering for our RSS channel or perhaps to our Twitter feed @therussophile. Get the most up to date change on the state of affairs around Ukraine by following me on Twitter (@therussophile) and through subscribing to the RSS-feed of hhtp://www.therussophile.org.

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/tag/humiliation/

Robert Laity

humiliation Archives -

“ABUSED BY UNSCRUPULOUS PRACTITIONERS” by Sharon Rondeau (Dec. 16, 2014) — On Friday, The Post & Email left a voice message with Senior Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood‘s office asking for comment on remarks he made on November 25, 2014 following the reading of “guilty” verdicts in the retrial of Christian missionary George Joseph Raudenbush, III. […] “THE DAMAGES MAY BE IRREPARABLE” by Cody Robert Judy, ©2014, blogging at CodyJudy (Dec. 15, 2014) —Don’t want to contact your U.S. Representatives or U.S. Senators about the U.S. Constitution being violated in the qualifications of the Office of the President by Barack Obama’s self and voluntarily released long-form birth certificate to the White House […]

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/yemeni-oil-reserves-are-being-stolen-as-civil-war-rages-on.html/

Yemeni oil reserves are being stolen as civil war rages on

This post was originally published on this site sott.net/news A Yemeni economic expert from the region contends that French Total’s operations in the Kharkhir region amount to stealing on behalf of Saudi Arabia and ousted president Mansour Hadi – who, as the internationally recognized leader of Yemen, likely believes his actions are within his range of powers. As the Yemen civil war carries on, Yemen’s oil reserves are becoming a specific point of tension between Yemen’s ousted Sunni leaders and their Saudi backers, and the Shi’ite Houthis and their Iranian backers. “Saudi Arabia has set up an oil base in collaboration with the French Total company in the Southern parts of Kharkhir region near the Saudi border province of Najran and is exploiting oil from the wells in the region,” Mohammad Abdolrahman Sharafeddin told Fars News Agencyof Iran on Tuesday. “Sixty-three percent of Yemen’s crude production is being stolen by Saudi Arabia in cooperation with Mansour Hadi, the fugitive Yemeni president, and his mercenaries.” In 2014, Christophe de Margerie, the CEO of Total at the time, visited Sana’a to meet with President Abdrabuh Mansour Hadi and discuss expanding the company’s footprint in the host country. “Margerie indicated that the relationship with Yemen is strategic and that TOTAL is expanding and developing its oil blocks in the country,” according to Hadi’s website. In January, the Saudi-led coalition that backs Hadi’s claim to the presidency clashed with a group of Houthi rebels in the Bab el-Mandab region – a vital passage for around 3.8 million barrels of Middle Eastern crude to overseas markets. Control of the passage is important for both sides. The Sunni coalition cannot allow the Houthis to take it over because according to Emirati news outlet The National, they could use it to blackmail their enemies, paralyzing oil trade via the passage. from https://www.sott.net/article/344213-Yemeni-oil-reserves-are-being-stolen-as-civil-war-rages-on

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/2013/11/22/in-re-douglas-vogt-part-1/

Robert Laity

In Re: Douglas Vogt

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts . Thanks for visiting! “FAR FROM OVER” by Montgomery Blair Sibley, ©2013, blogging at Amo Probos (Nov. 22, 2013) — As I reported last time, Douglas Vogt has filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington a Notice of Commission. This document asked the court to refer the evidence contained in Doug’s 95 page public affidavit and 75 page sealed affidavit to the Grand Jury to investigate. In response, the Court has mis-characterized Doug’s filing as a “complaint” and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction and “standing”. This case is far from over. In addition, the first wave of 25+ mailings to district court judges across the country has commenced. Here’s hoping Christmas comes early in the form of an invitation to present this forensic – and other presently not public – information about Obama’s Certificates of Live Birth to a fair and impartial Grand Jury. As so many have forgotten, this is the Grand Jury’s job: A grand jury investigation is not fully carried out until every available clue has been run down and all witnesses examined in every proper way to find if a crime has been committed. United States v. Stone, 429 F.2d 138, 140 (CA2 1970). Such an investigation may be triggered by tips, rumors, evidence proffered by the prosecutor, or the personal knowledge of the grand jurors. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S., at 362. It is only after the grand jury has examined the evidence that a determination of whether the proceeding will result in an indictment can be made . . . .” Branzburg V. Hayes et Al., at 701-72. So . . . why is the Obama DOJ and the Chief Justice Roberts Court System blocking Vogt’s affidavit from a Grand Jury investigation? If the government can prevent 23 citizens to determine if a crime has been committed — a power reserved unto the People by the Fifth Amendment — by blocking public access to the Grand Jury, then what are we the People to do? My answer will be forthcoming soon . . .

bias

truepundit.com

2017-11-27

https://truepundit.com/kraft-heinz-gives-employees-off-on-monday-after-super-bowl/

Kraft Heinz gives employees off on Monday after Super Bowl

[ditty_news_ticker id=”25027″] PITTSBURGH — Kraft Heinz says the Monday after the Super Bowl will be a day off for its salaried employees, and it has launched a tongue-in-cheek campaign to make the day — dubbed “Smunday” a national holiday. The food producing giant is co-headquartered in Chicago and Pittsburgh, neither of which has a team in the Feb. 5 game. – READ MORE

bias

thenewamerican.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/5992-spontaneous

Written, Steve Farrell

Spontaneous? I Think Not

From the mouth of university professors, U.S. State Department officials, and the media we repeatedly hear the mantra that socialist and communist revolutions are brought about by “the spontaneous actions of oppressed peoples.” In one sense, there is nothing false about this; that is in the only sense possible, that Marx and Lenin taught it. But it is also true that Marx and Lenin taught something far, far different to their fellow revolutionaries as to what really goes on, and what must go on in a successful real world revolution. Lenin writes: To belittle the socialist ideology in any way, to turn aside from it in the slightest degree means to strengthen bourgeois ideology. There is much talk of spontaneity. But the spontaneous development of the working-class movement leads to its subordination to bourgeois ideology; for the spontaneous working-class movement is trade-unionism, and trade unionism means the ideological enslavement of the workers by the bourgeoisie. Hence, our task, the task of Social-Democracy, is to combat spontaneity, to divert the working-class movement from this spontaneous, trade-unionist striving to come under the wing of the bourgeoisie, and to bring it under the wing of revolutionary Social Democracy. And so the lie comes out. Socialism’s success, even its existence among the people, is based upon an aggressive propaganda campaign orchestrated by well placed revolutionaries which inserts itself into the minds and hearts of the working class or minority group(s) and leads them at every stage to overthrow the existing political and moral order. This the revolutionaries do by agitation, by division, by pointing out and exaggerating differences and offenses — real or pretended — and by stroking the moral, religious, and political strings of men, appealing to their innate desire for good, for having things right and fair among them, so that they might stand equal before the laws of men and God, on the road to earthly and eternal success, but in such manner over time that the tune gradually, carefully changes from something bright and inspiring and even Godly, to something dark and damning and devilish, so that what was once good and fair and right and equality promoting is molded into its opposite on every count, an opposite imposed by a state that has daily increased its power, abuse, and ability to exact obedience, and submitted to by a people who have increasingly lost their will and power to resist. This the revolutionaries also do, as hinted by Lenin, by insuring that any opposition ideology (the bourgeois ideology: that is, as Marx defined it: belief in God, in the Judeo-Christian ethic, in the traditional family, in private property, in eternal truths and eternal justice, and in limited government) is heard less and less, that is, by using every means possible to crush freedom of speech, or access to the public sphere, for those who believe in and uphold these things. Spontaneous liberty movement inspired by oppression and economic hard times? I think not. Conspiracy with intent to empower the revolutionary few over the great mass of man is the true reality, a reality communist revolutionaries everywhere understand. As F.D.R., another socialist once admitted, nothing of this nature ever happens by accident. Source: Vladimir Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, “The Spontaneity of the Masses and the Consciousness of the Social-Democrats” (1901) Steve Farrell is one of the original pundits at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com (1999–2008), associate professor of political economy at George Wythe University, the author of the highly praised inspirational novel Dark Rose, and editor in chief of The Moral Liberal.

bias

thenewamerican.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/11195-political-pushback-to-austerity-in-europe-is-increasing

Bob Adelmann

Political Pushback to Austerity in Europe is Increasing

On Thursday, April 26th the Standard & Poor’s credit rating agency explained why it cut Spain’s sovereign debt rating by two notches: We believe that the Kingdom of Spain’s budget trajectory will likely deteriorate…in contrast with our previous projections. At the same time, we see an increasing likelihood that Spain’s government will need to provide further fiscal support to the banking sector. In simpler terms Spain’s government continues to overspend, its banks are holding increasingly bad loans on real estate that threaten their existence, and the economy is declining and unemployment is setting new records. And so S&P, in its infinite wisdom, is keeping its rating on Spain’s government debt at investment grade levels while reducing them just two levels. But, says Standard and Poor's, their “negative long-term outlook…reflects our view of the significant risks to Spain’s economic growth and budgetary performance…” So S&P is reserving the right to issue further downgrades if things get worse, which it appears that they will. Unemployment in Spain is the highest among industrialized economies at nearly 25 percent, with more than half of those under age 25 out of work and nearly 2 million households without a wage earner. The economy is already in recession, which S&P acknowledged by forecasting negative growth of 1.5% this year, five times worse than they projected just three months ago. This is naturally resulting in declining personal disposable income and a shrinking demand for goods and services. Add to this similar difficulties faced by most of its trading partners and S&P is finally waking up to the reality that Spain is in serious trouble. Revealingly, S&P has little optimism that things are going to change soon: In our view, the strategy to manage the European sovereign debt crisis continues to lack effectiveness. We think credit conditions, and hence the economic outlook for Spain, could…deteriorate further than we anticipated earlier this year… We have also considered a downside scenario that…could lead us to lower the ratings again… The citizens in Spain and elsewhere have just about reached the breaking point. Riots in Madrid last week were a strong indicator. On April 20th the Dutch Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, was deposed. In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders, the leader of the country’s third-largest political party, is resisting “diktats from Brussels,” adding that “We must be master of our own house.” But the surprise run-off election this weekend in France between President Nicolas Sarkozy and hard-left Francois Hollande – with Hollande favored to win – is putting the entire question of continuing harsh austerity measures in order to balance the books on the backs of the citizens out in the open. Hollande is running on a platform that includes demands to renegotiate the European Monetary Union agreement and back off from the austerity being imposed on recalcitrant “sinner” nations. Said Hollande: “It’s not for Germany to decide for the rest of Europe. If I am elected president, there will be a change in Europe’s construction. We’re not just any country: we can change the situation.” Those austerity measures are the ones being imposed on those states that spent more than they should have on growing government programs because the money was cheap and easy to get, and now are reluctant to mend their ways. But those measures are beginning to bite and their effects are beginning to be felt at the ballot box. On May 6th Greece will be voting for a new parliament, and Italy goes to the polls for local elections. Germany’s state elections take place on May 31st, while Ireland is holding a referendum on the entire issue of Europe’s fiscal pact. In June France has its parliamentary elections and in September the Netherlands will go to the polls. The results are expected to put a significant damper on further austerity measures and are likely a result in a relaxation of those already imposed. If Hollande wins it appears that he will have the sympathy of the leaders of other countries who are tired of EU demands and intrusions in return for loans to bail them out. As noted by Louise Armitstead of the Telegraph: For three years, [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel and Sarkozy have imposed savage austerity with one overriding justification: to save the euro. As if in wartime, democracy has been sidelined and public opinion ignored under the assumption that the state – or superstate – has a higher cause. With breathtaking audacity, Brussels installed its own technocrats in Greece and Italy to impose its policies in “sinner states.” Extreme measures were needed to keep the Eurozone intact, they said – without ever properly asking if the electorate wanted the prize, let alone had the stomach for the cost of winning it. Now, finally, the electorate is getting a chance to express itself. The election run-off in France this week and those following in quick succession should prove the point: back off! Photo: People line up to enter a government employment benefit office in Madrid, Spain, April 27, 2012: AP Images

bias

thenewamerican.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/24762-michigan-bill-would-nullify-executive-orders-and-other-presidential-edicts

Joe Wolverton, Ii

Michigan Bill Would Nullify Executive Orders and Other Presidential Edicts

A nullification bill to be considered by the Michigan state legislature in 2017 would block enforcement of unconstitutional executive orders inside the borders of that sovereign state. House Bill 5989 would effectively nullify any attempt by a president of the United States to see any of his monarchical declarations afforded the color of law within the Great Lakes State. Specifically, the measure introduced by state representative Jim Runestad and 11 other co-sponsors prohibits: This state, any agency of this state, any political subdivision of this state, or any employee of any agency of this state or any political subdivision of this state from using personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer, or cooperate with certain executive orders or certain policy directives of the federal government. In other words, it’s not just executive orders that would be blocked by this bill; all similar executive edicts would meet a similar fate in Michigan. While Donald Trump has promised to rescind many of his predecessors’ executive orders, the last eight years have seen the the attacks on the Constitution’s separation of powers intensify, with President Obama sidestepping congressional impediments in order to achieve his legislative goals via executive orders and signing statements. A presidential signing statement is a pronouncement that the president appends to a bill he signs into law. Nowadays, this executive addendum sets forth the president’s understanding of the law and gives guidance to the myriad departments under the executive branch umbrella on how to carry out the requirements of the new legislation. Signing statements change the laws, revoking parts of them or adding provisions to them, at the same time redefining the Constitution and nullifying its checks and balances. Using them, the president assumes all power — executive, legislative, and judicial — unto himself and does so in a manner that is beyond question, beyond debate, beyond vote, and thus beyond the reach of the American people. Constitutionally speaking, if a president does not like a piece of legislation, the only recourse allowed him is a veto. Modern presidents, however, have two self-perpetuating habits that obviate the use of the veto: engorging themselves with power not delegated to them by the Constitution and disregarding the Constitution altogether. Given the recent run of success that previous presidents have enjoyed by unconstitutionally converting signing statements, presidential proclamations, and executive orders into “law,” it is easy to understand why a president zealous for the realization of his own vision of a greater America would be tempted to pick up his presidential pen and follow in the footsteps of those who held it before him. After all, why go to all the bother of getting a pet project passed by Congress when a president can accomplish the same end by issuing a signing statement or an executive order that will never be discussed? Thus, he sits quietly and victoriously in the dark solitude of the Oval Office having his monarchical cake and eating it, too. Notably, the Michigan bill refuses to recognize as lawful any federal action that has not been “affirmed by a vote of the Congress of the United States and signed into law as prescribed by the constitution of the United States and federal statute.” The second section of the proposed measure is equally commendable, declaring: This state and any political subdivision of this state is prohibited from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer, or cooperate with a policy directive issued by the United States Department of Justice to law enforcement agencies in this state. Refusing to cooperate with the agents of the federal government who are acting outside the boundaries of their constitutional authority is a tack recommended by James Madison as a way to keep the federal government from encroaching on state prerogatives. Madison, in The Federalist, No. 45, counseled state lawmakers to “refuse to cooperate with officers of the Union” when the federal authority attempts to enforce any act not falling within its constitutionally enumerated powers. As we have reported on many occasions, following Madison’s advice is called anti-commandeering; it prohibits the federal government from forcing states to participate in any federal program that does not concern “international and interstate matters.” Given the text of the Michigan bill’s explicit proscription against providing any state assistance to federal “directives,” it is likely that Representative Runestad knew of President Obama’s propensity to use secret directives to diminish the scope of American liberty. Since being inaugurated in 2009, President Barack Obama has issued 30 Presidential Policy Directives (PPDs), 19 of which he has ordered to be kept secret from Congress and the American people. USA Today called attention to these secret orders in an article published on June 24, 2015. The article explained: Of the 30 PPDs issued by Obama, 19 have not been released. And for 11 of those, the White House has not disclosed even the subject of the order. "It's not only the public that doesn't have copies. It's also Congress that doesn't have copies," Aftergood said. "It's a domain of largely unchecked presidential authority. It doesn't mean it's bad, but it's lacking in independent oversight.” But they have the same legal force as an executive order, forming a body of largely secret law, said Harold Relyea, a political scientist who advised Congress on national security directives before retiring from the Congressional Research Service. "The difference is that while executive orders are public by law — they must be published in the Federal Register to be effective — PPDs are not," he said. "It is a kind of secret law. People have to obey it. But it's a directive that can allocate money, direct people or take a course of action.” Even this exercise of unconstitutional deception was not enough to quench Barack Obama’s thirst for authoritarian power. As we reported on November 19 of this year: Barack Obama’s administration set a record on November 17 by issuing 527 pages of new and proposed federal rules and regulations in one day. This increases the total number of pages in the daily chronicle of the central government’s edicts, the Federal Register, to a shocking 81,640 pages for 2016 alone as of Nov. 17! So, in the New Year when state legislators in Michigan get back to the business of making law for their state, they would be well advised to pass HB 5989 and get it to the governor’s desk for his signature as soon as possible. While no one knows for sure if Donald Trump will buck the trend toward totalitarianism created by past presidents, Michigan would be wise to be safe from enforcing signing statements, executive orders, and policy directives, rather than being sorry to have surrendered its sovereignty to any president’s push to consolidate power in the hands of one man. In 2017, the bill will begin its legislative journey by being considered by the state House of Representatives’ Committee on Oversight and Ethics. Photo: Michigan state flag

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/report-1500-underage-refugees-arrived-in-germany-married.html/

Report: 1,500 underage refugees arrived in Germany married

This post was originally published on this site sott.net/news Some 1,475 minor refugees, mostly girls, have arrived in Germany already married, the majority of whom come from Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq, an official report cited by German media says. Almost one in four are reportedly less than 14 years old. The numbers from the government migration office were released in the Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung (WAZ) newspaper on Friday. According to data collected in July of this year, some 1,475 refugee minors were recorded by the migration office as married. The usual minimum age for marriage in Germany is 18, but an exception can be made for 16-year-old children if they have their parents’ permission. The majority of married minors arrived from Syria (664), Afghanistan (157), Iraq (100), Bulgaria (65), Poland (41), Romania (33), and Greece (32), the report says. Girls make up the majority – at least 1,152. The document states that 994 minors are between 16 and 18 years of age, while 361 are under 14 years old. Only 26 of the children have permanent residence permits, while some 516 minors have temporary residence permits, the report adds. The problem of underage migrants arriving married in Germany not new. In June, the state of Bavaria confirmed that there were 550 brides aged under 18, and 161 under 16, living among asylum seekers that arrived in the recent migrant wave. A government report from 2012 revealed that more than half of all Muslim marriages in Germany involve a bride under 18. More than one million refugees moved to Germany in 2015 under Chancellor Angela Merkel’s open door policy, and the country is expecting an estimated 300,000 new refugees this year. Germany isn’t the only European country with “child brides” issues. In February of this year, similar cases were also reported in Norway, where at least 61 minors, several under the age of sexual consent, were married at the time they applied for asylum in Norway, according to government figures for 2015. It was later revealed that child brides were being allowed to stay with their older husbands in Norwegian asylum centers. Dozens of young female asylum seekers were also discovered living with older men in Danish refugee centers and, in March of this year, at least 70 married girls under the age of 18 were found in asylum centers in Sweden, including in major cities like Stockholm and Malmo. from https://www.sott.net/article/327926-Report-1500-underage-refugees-arrived-in-Germany-married

bias

truepundit.com

2017-11-27

https://truepundit.com/mike-pence-u-s-will-direct-humanitarian-programs-in-the-middle-east-no-more-u-n-funding-video/

True Pundit Staff

Mike Pence: U.S. Will Direct Humanitarian Programs in the Middle East; No More U.N. Funding (VIDEO)

Mike Pence: U.S. Will Direct Humanitarian Programs in the Middle East; No More U.N. Funding (VIDEO) FOLLOW US! Vice President Mike Pence told Christian leaders from the Middle East gathered in the nation’s capital for the annual In Defense of Christians summit on Wednesday that President Donald Trump has directed the U.S. State Department to stop relying on the United Nations to provide humanitarian aid to persecuted religious minorities in the region. “My friends, those days are over,” Pence said, adding that the Obama administration paid more than one billion dollars for humanitarian aid, with the majority of the funding funneled through the U.N. “Yet the United Nations has too often failed to help the most vulnerable communities, especially religious minorities,” Pence said. “The result has been that countless people continue to suffer and struggle needlessly.” Pence called it a “sad reality” that the main U.N. presence in terror-ridden places like Syria and Iraq is their flag posted on abandoned buildings in places where persecuted Christians are not even present.

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/2015/02/27/obama-eligibility-challenger-submit-obama-forgery-evidence-to-county-grand-jury/

Robert Laity

Obama Eligibility Challenger: Submit Obama Forgery Evidence to County Grand Jury -

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts . Thanks for visiting! “THE LAST COURSE AVAILABLE” by Montgomery Blair Sibley, ©2015, [email protected] Greetings: I reach out to you towards the end of having you petition your county grand jury to investigate the legitimacy of the identity documents of Barack Hussein Obama. I have without success. Let me explain: I, and numerous others, over the last six years have repeatedly sought to have a judicial determination concerning the legitimacy of those identity documents. Repeatedly, every single court which has been petitioned has refused to allow such a determination instead ruling that a citizen does not have standing to challenge such documents, even if they are forgeries. Likewise, repeated petitioning to Members of Congress has resulted in no response. Finally, though expressly allowed by federal statute, Eric Holder & Company have blocked every attempt I and Doug Vogt made to have a federal grand jury investigate those identity documents. As such, I have resolved to abandon further federal/state judicial and legislative petitioning in favor of the last course available: The county grand jury. Before I detail my request for you to petition your local county grand jury, a little background. In 1895, Supreme Court Justice Brewer in Frisbie v. United States, 157 U.S. 160, 163 (1895) described a system relying on an energetic Grand Jury: “[I]n this country the common practice is for the Grand Jury to investigate any alleged crime, no matter how or by whom suggested to them, and after determining that the evidence is sufficient to justify putting the party suspected on trial, to direct the preparation of the formal charge or indictment.” The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” In 1758, William Blackstone – the noted legal scholar who influenced the founding fathers – gave the classic definition of a presentment: “A presentment, properly speaking, is the notice taken by a grand jury of any offence from their own knowledge or observation, without any bill of indictment laid before them at the suit of the king. . . . upon which the officer of the court must afterwards frame an indictment, before the party presented as the [perpetrator] can be put to answer it.” There is strong precedent for such an investigation and presentment by a county grand jury. Upon this background, I ask that you petition your local county Grand Jury to investigate and make a formal “presentment” concerning Barack Hussein Obama’s Identity Documents. The goal is to have the Grand Jury issue subpoenas to each of the record custodians of Obama’s Identity Documents thus allowing once and for all the original of those documents to be produced, examined and the serious questions concerning those documents to be answered. How do you do that? Three steps: 1. Identify the mailing address of your county grand jury with as much precision as possible. You may have to call the County Clerk’s office to get that address. 2. Download and print – in color – the Request for an Investigation and Presentment Concerning Barack Hussein Obama’s Identity Documents. The color printing will cost about $$15 at a Fedex/Kinkos. 3. Download and customize the Cover letter for the Request, print that and then mail it and the “Request for Investigation” off USPS “Priority/Signature Required” to the Foreperson of your county Grand Jury. I am happy to address any questions and would appreciate being advised of your efforts and any result. God Speed.

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/2017/04/05/judge-fixing-outcome-cliven-bundys-trial/

Robert Laity

Is This Judge Fixing the Outcome of Cliven Bundy's Trial? -

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts . Thanks for visiting! DENIES DEFENSE WITNESSES AN OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY by Sharon Rondeau (Apr. 5, 2017) — U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro is presiding over the trial of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and five other defendants stemming from a confrontation with agents from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Exactly three years ago, federal agents began seizing and impounding Bundy’s cattle resulting from a dispute which began in 1993 over grazing fees. Supporters from all across the country traveled to the ranch, many of whom carried personal firearms. Bundy’s son Dave was arrested as a result of the standoff and held briefly, then released. A full-fledged confrontation was avoided when BLM agents retreated following a number of initial clashes with protesters. Bundy and 18 others were eventually charged by the federal government on 16 counts, including “conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States” and obstruction of justice. Bundy was not arrested directly after the standoff at his ranch on April 12, 2014, but rather, was taken into custody after debarking from a flight to Portland, OR after two of his sons were involved in the Malheur Wildlife Refuge occupation and arrested. In February of last year, Cliven Bundy; his sons Ammon and Ryan; radio host Pete Santilli, who provided live coverage of the Bundy Ranch confrontation as it unfolded; and Ryan Payne of Montana were indicted by a federal grand jury on the aforementioned 16 charges. Like Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III; Darren Wesley Huff; and many others, the Obama regime labeled the Bundys “domestic terrorists.” After his arrest in Oregon, Cliven Bundy was placed in the Multnomah, OR County Jail, then in solitary confinement in a federal prison, where he has remained through the present day. Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had recommended Navarro to Obama for the federal judgeship. A former chief deputy district attorney in Clark County, NV, Navarro was confirmed by the Senate in May 2010, an announcement Reid posted on his Senate website at the time. Prior to her confirmation hearings, Reid had told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Navarro “is devoted to justice and the rule of law.” However, the Las Vegas Sun reported of her candidacy: Reid’s glowing testimony came despite the fact that Navarro is one of the lowest rated of the federal judicial nominations made by Obama since March. A substantial majority of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, meaning 10 to 13 of its 15 members, rated her as qualified whereas a minority determined her to be not qualified. Only one other nominee among the 45 made by Obama since he took office was determined to be not qualified by at least some members of the committee. Last year, Bundy’s lead defense attorney sued Navarro for allegedly taking part in a “conspiracy,” along with former Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and Barack Hussein Obama aimed at “stealing his property,” maintaining Bundy in solitary confinement, violating his constitutional rights, and denying him an impartial trial. On May 11, 2016, Fox News reported that “Federal prosecutor Steven Myhre dismissed as ‘outrageous, irrelevant and offensive’ the idea that there was “some grand conspiracy by political leaders to take over the land.” On April 7, 2016, Breitbart reported that “Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is reportedly hoping the federal government—specifically President Barack Obama’s administration—will grab a stretch of land in Southern Nevada near the infamous Bundy Ranch, now that many in the Bundy group are in federal custody,” citing a “Nevada political observer.” On December 28, 2016, Obama declared a large area in southeastern Nevada a national monument, said to include “the site of the infamous Bundy Ranch standoff as well as land very close to the Bundy Ranch itself.” The Bundys’ response to the designation, posted on their blog, reads: We, the Bundy Family, would like to say to President Obama that we are saddened, but not surprised, by the your decision to make our ranch and home a national monument. If any of this were really about protecting the land, you would come here, work with the local people who love this land, those who have a vested interest in this land, and take the time to learn what this land really needs. This is about control, pure and simple. You don’t love this land, you have never visited here, but you love being in control of this land. The problems we have had with federal land management have never been about cows, tortoises, or fees. It has always been about the constitutional limits on the federal government’s authority. While you enjoy a vacation in Hawaii we are here caring for this land and resisting federal overreach. Shame on you for undoing with your pen the good work we have done with our sweat for generations. We call on Attorney General Adam Laxalt to fight this to the fullest extent of the law! There has been speculation that Trump might take the step of rescinding national-monument designations, but no announcement has been made to date. Bundy had wanted Atty. Larry Klayman, founder of FreedomWatch, to represent him, but Navarro denied his request. Klayman wrote shortly thereafter that Navarro’s reasons for denying his application to practice pro hac vice on Bundy’s behalf were invalid. Just days ago, the Las Vegas Sun reported that Bundy’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the issue was denied by a three-judge panel in a 2-1 vote. The panel’s opinion states that the judges “do not understand” one of Klayman’s requests and that “there are no merits” to Bundy’s request for a writ of mandamus. Despite his having been prohibited from representing Bundy, Klayman publicized a legal defense fund on his behalf. On Monday, the AP reported that Navarro disallowed the majority of defense witnesses from testifying after reportedly allowing the prosecution to call “more than three dozen” of its own witnesses. An attorney for one of the defendants said that the ruling has “crippled the defense and ensured the jury won’t hear from most of the witnesses that defendants’ attorneys intended to call.” On Wednesday evening, constitutional educator, attorney and author KrisAnne Hall called upon the congressional Freedom Caucus to impeach Navarro. Having begun in February, the Bundy trial is now expected to conclude in the near future, perhaps by the end of the week, according to media reports. A video account of some of the proceedings dated March 23 is here. On March 25, NewsTarget reported that “The Bundy Ranch trials are underway, having begun in February of this year. There have already been reports that federal court Judge Gloria Navarro, who is presiding over the case, has dealt several blows to the defense teams throughout the trial. She has allegedly given the prosecution favorable treatment regarding time expansion, granting them over five weeks to present their case. She has, however, refused to do the same for the defense, allowing the six defendants only one week to present their case.” That allegation was confirmed on Monday.

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/2013/12/02/the-post-emails-open-letter-to-those-masquerading-as-the-media-pb/

Robert Laity

The Post & Email's Open Letter to Those Masquerading as the Media pb -

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts . Thanks for visiting! “LOOK IN THE MIRROR” December 2, 2013 To the 39 “media” outlets protesting lack of access to the Obama White House in a hand-delivered letter on November 21, 2013: Your missive to putative White House spokesman Jay Carney will fall on deaf ears. You wonder why Obama’s handlers will not allow you access to “the President while he is performing his official duties.” You question why only sanitized, poised photos released by the White House are allowed to circulate in the public arena. In order to obtain answers, however, you need to look at yourselves and admit what you, not Obama, did to your profession. Had you researched Obama’s background in 2007 and 2008, you would have found out that he is a communist. “Communist,” you say? Oh, you believed that communists were a thing of the past, something railed about by that crazy Sen. Joseph McCarthy back in the 1950s while more sophisticated members of the Congress and the “media” laughed behind his back or ridiculed him openly. Yes, ridicule is a thing you “journalists” do quite well when you see something that is simply below your elevated stature to investigate. An example is the questions about Obama’s constitutional eligibility which arose in 2008. In late 2007, progressive talking head Chris Matthews said on MSNBC that “Obama was born in Indonesia.” While Matthews failed to cite a source for his statement, a second similar report went to print in a Hawaii publication shortly thereafter. None of you was even the slightest bit curious about Obama’s background and whether or not he was constitutionally eligible to occupy the highest office in the land. You gave no thought to Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution which mandates that only a “natural born Citizen” be elected to the presidency. You are now beside yourselves because the Obama regime has imposed “restrictions” which “raise constitutional concerns.” However, you are five years too late. Those of us who had “constitutional concerns” when we saw a foreigner campaigning for the office of President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America were ridiculed, brushed aside, made pariahs, forbidden from speaking our minds on your precious airwaves, and banished to the blogosphere for even suggesting that Obama was not constitutionally eligible or possessed other impediments to serving in that capacity. Now, you are indignant that this foreign-born domestic enemy, this friend of radical Islam, this charlatan who has usurped the Oval Office each and every day for the last five years, denigrating and spitting on America, has limited what you perceive as your First Amendment rights. Look in the mirror. Because you failed to act, because you failed to investigate, because you wanted Obama to win the presidency whether or not he met the eligibility criteria, the United States of America is now held hostage by a group of 1960s radicals who wish to see all of you, and us, destroyed. If you would remove your blinders just a little bit more, you would see, in all of its stark reality, that the enemy from within is not only within the gates, but now rules supreme. Do you really believe that the takeover of the auto industry was necessary, that dealerships were closed randomly, that so many stockholders lost their investments without recourse in the courts because it was constitutional? And how prodigiously did you report on Obama’s bowing to the Saudi king in 2009? Did you host commentators with opposing views to analyze what Obama intended by that and other of his actions? Do you really believe that the sequestration cuts affecting the military are not imposed by design after Obama skyrocketed the national debt to over $$17 trillion in order to reward his former campaign bundlers and other cronies with Americans’ hard-earned dollars? What did you do after the Obama regime removed all references to “radical Islam” from FBI and military training manuals? Did you rejoice at how inclusive your black president was, or did you ask why it was done? Did you wonder why Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley‘s career was ruined because Obama’s Joint Chiefs Chairman, Gen. Martin Dempsey, became a shill for his Islamic boss? Did you ever investigate why Lt. Col. Terry Lakin sat in a cold, hard cell at Ft. Leavenworth for five months for questioning Obama’s eligibility and why no one in Congress could answer the question? Or did you remain in your comfortable offices and lounge chairs living the good life while Obama continued to eviscerate what was left of it? Do you wonder why Islamic terrorism is on the rise, as admitted by a leading Democrat senator on Sunday? Do you wonder why nearly four times the number of U.S. soldiers’ lives have been lost in Afghanistan under the man you propelled into a position of commanding our military than under his predecessor? Do you ever wonder about the young men who have been court-martialed unfairly because Obama’s Rules of Engagement have tied their hands while Islamic terrorists shoot at their hearts and their men? Do you even cover those cases? Or are you above that, too? Did it ever enter your minds that your lack of concern for America, and your intense desire to see a progressive candidate “fundamentally transform America,” have caused your current frustration over Obama’s lack of “transparency” today? The truth is, you are the ones who have done a disservice to America by refusing to investigate Obama’s background. You never reported that he was a member of the New Party in Chicago, that he used and may still use aliases, that his background and life story make no sense, and that he has associated with Chicago’s underground since before he entered politics. All of that was below you, and you certainly didn’t want to unearth any undesirable information on your chosen man. On a daily basis, you deny Americans the information they need to make sound decisions about their government while promoting your own pet agendas. Now, most egregiously, you have not looked into the matter of the forgery of Obama’s long-form birth certificate as reported at two press conferences last year. Instead of launching bona fide investigations of your own after Mike Zullo and Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced their findings of fraud and forgery, you became angry at the messengers because their words did not mesh with your doctrinaire beliefs that your Anointed One, Barack Hussein Obama, would ever engage in obfuscation and secrecy to the extent that his real identity is not even known. Had you investigated Obama in 2008, America would not be facing the crisis currently visited upon us now. Instead of indignantly protesting the “troubling precedent” which the regime has imposed on you by limiting your access to photograph its figurehead, why don’t you question why they would do such a thing? Why don’t you ask why Obama is the most un-American person to have ever stepped foot in the White House outside of his Muslim Brotherhood friends, whose visits occur under the cloak of secrecy? Why don’t you question what he is doing to all of us by depriving people of their right to choose whether or not to buy health insurance? Where are your tough questions for the regime as cancer patients lose their coverage and, after speaking out, receive audit notices from the IRS? Why can’t you admit that you were wrong? Did you ever read George Orwell’s 1984? If not, you need to. Do you not wonder why the EPA is destroying jobs, why there is no economic recovery, and the reason that there are so many Muslims working at the Department of Homeland Security? How many questions have you asked about the deaths of four Americans and the injuries of several others in Beghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012? Or were you too scared to speak up for fear that you might lose access to the faux administration? It didn’t matter what you did; you have lost that access anyway, as evidenced by your letter. Instead of hoping to fulfill your own political desires for America, you should have upheld your duty to perform your First Amendment function before Obama cheated his way in to the people’s house at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue by doing old-fashioned investigative journalism instead of the whitewash so typical of big media companies today. If you are concerned about your constitutional rights being trampled, why are you not concerned about Americans’ right to have a constitutionally-eligible individual without foreign allegiances in our White House? Has it occurred to you that the man you call “the President” has absolutely no right to even pretend to hold the office? You decry Obama’s absconding of your First Amendment rights, but I decry your wanton destruction of the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights by failing to vet this man who continues to wreak his havoc on a nation now reeling from the effects of his evil intent. One of you on the list of media companies protesting Obama’s “limits” on the press has been identified as a criminal co-conspirator in two affidavits presented to a U.S. District Court and now the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. One of your reporters is specifically named as having purposely provided false information to the public to convince them that Obama was born in Hawaii when there is no evidence to prove that that is the case. Oh, but yes, you never investigated that and ridiculed those who did, so you wouldn’t know…those “Birthers” are crazy, now, aren’t they? If the allegations against NBC News are true, what does that say about the whole sorry lot of you for going along with the “born in Hawaii” charade? What it says is that your day is past. You sold out America for 30 pieces of silver, or whatever your price was to continue to preen yourselves and draw your six-figure salaries from your corrupt news bureaus. You are part of the problem, and in fact, you are the problem, as evidenced by your complete disregard for the truth. Do some reading on Germany in the 1930s, and you will have your answer as to why your “constitutional concerns” will not be addressed. This time, Carney and his ilk will be ridiculing you, wondering which one of you he will take to the woodshed, or worse, for daring to sign on to such a bold letter. Those who propelled Hugo Chavez to power in Venezuela had their property and businesses seized by the very man they had supported. Those who catapulted Obama into the White House without proper vetting to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans are now being silenced. Now look in the mirror. Therein lies your answer. Instead of wringing your hands and worrying if you will be next to receive a nasty phone call from one of Obama’s handlers, pick up the phone and call Mike Zullo. Call Sheriff Arpaio. Call Rep. Steve Stockman. Call someone who can show you the proof that Obama is a fraud. Then, take a deep breath and do what needs to be done. Tell the American people the truth if you really care about constitutional rights. Throw them a lifeline. You have all the tools you need, but do you have the courage? Sincerely, Sharon Rondeau, Editor The Post & Email P.O. Box 195 Stafford Springs, CT 06076

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/2014/05/31/obamas-valkyrie-plan/

Robert Laity

Obama’s Valkyrie Plan -

“THE ULTIMATE DEATH PANEL” by OPOVV, ©2014 (May 31, 2014) — In order to achieve the mindset of the Chinese’s willingness to sacrifice 4,000 years of history and an ecological nightmare, the Three Gorges Dam was sold as the key to the future of China. Upon sober reflection, however, the short-term gains in flood control and an electrical plant just aren’t worth the irreversible damage done. For proof, all one has to do is study the long-term (35 years) effects of the Aswan Dam on the Nile River in Egypt. Common sense will, eventually, win over expediency, meaning building in a flood plain isn’t wise. Energy conservation forces people to be more self-sufficient and less reliant on outside sources (read: government) for electricity or any other commodity, for that matter. Governments, or, more accurately, bureaucrats, possess no incentive to mimic private enterprise’s thrift and ingenuity to maximize profits. To express the same thought another way, government employees are somehow unable to connect their own tax dollars to their paychecks, or any government money as their own, or was once theirs. It seems as if the government’s money has become, by whatever mysterious means, unconnected, directly or otherwise, to their own money. It’s a common occurrence, this denial of fiscal responsibility, that infects 90% of every bureaucrat in every country. This uncommon mindset (which is common) has given us the Obama Administration and government. That includes, unfortunately, the military leaders, those who sit as the Joint Chiefs of Staff and in other lofty offices (window views of the Potomac River) in the Pentagon. In order to capture the presidency, and to have kept it for these past five years, the Obama Administration has followed the playbook, chapter-by-chapter, line-by-line, of the Nazi takeover of Germany in the 1930’s. One of the chapters in this playbook is the subjugating, or, more accurately, the overthrow, of the patriotic population: the Valkyrie Chapter. The goal of this Administration is to destroy the Constitution, and the first step (which has already been completed) is to gain control of the courts. The proof-of-the-pudding is that LTC Terry Lakin was sent to prison, and millions of Americans believe that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of president. The fact that Obama is not yet in a cage down in Gitmo attests to the validity of this paragraph. More proofs are to be found in the numerous “phony scandals:” NSA spying upon the patriots of our country (thanks, Edward Snowden, for spilling the beans ); IRS targeting specific groups; Fast and Furious (going after the 2nd Amendment); VA Death Panels, etc., including: WHERE’S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE? We’re targeted, you and I: they want our guns; our Liberty; our Freedom; our Right of Free Speech; our Right of Assembly (when I was running for president in 2012, I once had a rally where the ticket of admission was to “Show Your Gun”); they want us out of the way: one way or the other, silenced. They have the manpower with the mindset to go after us patriots. Now we know why all those rounds of ammunition was purchased: they were purchased for the sole purpose to attack us, the enemy of Obama and his corrupt Administration. Valkyrie: the ultimate Death Panel. Semper Fi OPOVV

unknown

thesleuthjournal.com

2017-11-27

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/us-forest-service-wants-pay-1500-permit-take-photos-nature/

Guest Post

US Forest Service Wants You To Pay $$1500 For A Permit To Take Photos Of Nature

The U.S. Forest Service has tightened restrictions on media coverage in vast swaths of the country’s wild lands, requiring reporters to pay for a permit and get permission before shooting a photo or video in federally designated wilderness areas. Under rules being finalized in November, a reporter who met a biologist, wildlife advocate or whistleblower alleging neglect in 36 million acres of wilderness would first need special approval to shoot photos or videos even on an iPhone. Permits cost up to $$1,500, says Forest Service spokesman Larry Chambers, and reporters who don’t get a permit could face fines up to $$1,000. First Amendment advocates say the rules ignore press freedoms and are so vague they’d allow the Forest Service to grant permits only to favored reporters shooting videos for positive stories. “It’s pretty clearly unconstitutional,” said Gregg Leslie, legal defense director at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Alexandria, Va. “They would have to show an important need to justify these limits, and they just can’t.” Liz Close, the Forest Service’s acting wilderness director, says the restrictions have been in place on a temporary basis for four years and are meant to preserve the untamed character of the country’s wilderness. Close didn’t cite any real-life examples of why the policy is needed or what problems it’s addressing. She didn’t know whether any media outlets had applied for permits in the last four years. She said the agency was implementing the Wilderness Act of 1964, which aims to protect wilderness areas from being exploited for commercial gain. “It’s not a problem, it’s a responsibility,” she said. “We have to follow the statutory requirements.” The Forest Service’s previous rules caused a fuss in 2010, when the agency refused to allow an Idaho Public Television crew into a wilderness area to film student conservation workers. The agency ultimately caved to pressure from Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter. With smartphones blurring the lines between reporters and camera crews, U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, said the agency should tread more carefully. “The Forest Service needs to rethink any policy that subjects noncommercial photographs and recordings to a burdensome permitting process for something as simple as taking a picture with a cell phone,” Wyden said. “Especially where reporters and bloggers are concerned, this policy raises troubling questions about inappropriate government limits on activity clearly protected by the First Amendment.” Most of the country’s wilderness is in the West. Nearly 50 wilderness areas have been designated in Oregon, including wide stretches of land around Mount Hood, Mount Jefferson and Mount Washington. The rules allow exceptions only for breaking news coverage of events like fires and rescues. They’re more stringent than similar policies on wilderness areas managed by a different federal agency, the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM does not require any special permit for newsgathering in wilderness areas. By contrast, the Forest Service is giving its supervisors discretion to decide whether a news outlet’s planned video or photo shoots would meet the Wilderness Act’s goals. “If you were engaged on reporting that was in support of wilderness characteristics, that would be permitted,” Close said. The First Amendment prohibits the creation of laws that abridge press freedom. Asked whether the Forest Service believes its rule violates the First Amendment, Close replied: “It does not apply to breaking news.” Reporters have many more reasons to go into wilderness areas, however, than just to cover fires, rescues or other breaking events. The Forest Service is currently accepting public comment on its proposal. Those interested can comment online here.

unknown

thesleuthjournal.com

2017-11-27

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/make-healing-lotion-bars/

Gaye Levy

Make Your Own Healing Lotion Bars

About a month ago, I thought to myself, “Self, wouldn’t it be nice to have some of my healing salve in lotion bar form?”. This has been something I have often considered but as with a lot of projects, it kept moving to the back burner. Finally though, I got serious and in order to keep myself on track, reported my intentions on the Survival Buzz. Before we start, let me say this. Making lotion bars is so dang easy and the results so darn great, I should have done this months ago. What Are Healing Lotion Bars? Lotion bars can be many things but for the purpose of this article, healing lotion bars are solid healing salves that are firm to hold, like a bar of soap, but extra moisturizing, like a lotion. The healing comes from the base of coconut oil and Shea butter (although other oils can be used), and therapeutic essential oils. Healing Lotion Bars – The Recipe Making these Healing Lotion Bars is super simple. The ingredients are readily available and although you can use a fancy mold like I did, you can also use a muffin tin or even an ice cube tray for shaping the bars. But I digress. Let’s start with the recipe that, after some trial and error, I feel is just perfect! Ingredients 1/2 cup Coconut Oil (I used Tropical Traditions) 1/4 cup Shea Butter (I used 100% unrefined from Amazon.com) 1/2 cup Beeswax Pellets 25 drops each of Lavender, Peppermint & Rosemary Essential Oils (I used Spark Naturals) Set a pot of water on the stove and bring it to a slow simmer. You may also use a double boiler but I prefer using a pot of water and a glass measuring cup as a make-shift version so I can better see the action. This also makes pouring the hot liquid into the molds safer and easier. While you are waiting for the water, gather your ingredients so they are ready to go. Add the coconut oil and beeswax to your glass measuring cup and set it aside for a moment. Measure out a chunk of Shea butter then chop it up a bit into smaller pieces. Also set the Shea butter aside for now. When the water is simmering, add the glass measuring cup holding your coconut oil, Shea butter, and beeswax to the pan and let them melt. Do not add the essential oils; that comes later. Give your brew a stir from time to time; this tends to speed up the melting of the wax. For me, this step took about 10 minutes. When everything is nice and melted, quickly add the Shea butter. It will melt quickly which is what you want. While it is melting, stir it up like a crazy person. I read over and over that this prevents graininess so that is what I did. I used a dinner knife but you can use a spoon, fork, or even a chopstick. Once the Shea butter is melted, quickly take your liquid off the burner and add the essential oils. I used the same oils I use in miracle healing salve (and in about the same proportion) but you can use whatever you want. Or none at all if you want a plain lotion bar. Note: I use high quality oils from Spark Naturals for healing and therapeutic use but you can use your preferred brand. If you simply want nice-smelling lotion bars, feel free to use the inexpensive NOW brand from Amazon. Quickly pour the liquid into your molds. I used this silicone daisy mold and love the results although during my testing and trial runs, I used muffin tins, both bare and with paper liners. They worked fine but were not as cute. And these daisy shaped lotion bars are very cute if not a bit quirky! Set the healing lotion bars on the counter to firm up, or, do what I did and set them in the refrigerator to cool. They will harden up in an hour or two. Once the healing lotion bars are firm, pop them out of the mold. They are ready to use as is, although I find that they cure and harden a bit more over the next few days. Helpful Hints In my testing trials I learned a few things. When using your make-shift double boiler, ensure that the level of water in your pot is high enough in the pot to melt the oils. More than once I had to add extra water, slowing down the process as it came back to a simmer. I don’t know if oil burns but regardless, you want to take things nice and slow. Keep the water in your pan at a slow simmer and let the wax and coconut (or other) oil melt and meld together at their own speed. Give your ingredients a stir from time to time to keep things moving along but don’t try to rush. Shea butter has a reputation for being temperamental and becoming grainy and unpleasant. I did not have that problem. I did, however, settle on a lesser amount of Shea butter than most of the lotion bar recipes I found online and in my eBook library. This is another case, in my opinion, of less is more. Feel free to substitute other oils for the coconut oil. Olive oil, sweet almost oil, or a combination of oils will work. The proportion and blend of essential oils is a personal choice. Feel free to experiment. For my healing lotion bars, I used the same oils that I use in my Miracle Healing Salve. The recipe above made 1 1/4 cup of liquid lotion bar base so I chose to use the same proportion of 30 drops for every 4 ounces of base carrier oil (in this case coconut oil, Shea butter, and beeswax). Be mindful that you do not contaminate your lotion bars with water since even a few drops will mess up the results and possibly cause surface mold to appear over time. In addition to molds, you can pour the liquid into repurposed deodorant tubes or mini-tubes like these I purchased online. Shelf-life will depend upon storage conditions. If you live in a warm climate, consider making small batches like I did and then storing your backup supply in the refrigerator. My best guess is that shelf-life is about six months but this small batch will be used up long before that. How to Use Healing Lotion Bars I have been using these healing bars for two weeks now. I have rubbed them on my legs and feet before bed to mitigate those dreaded leg and ankle cramps that only like to visit at night. I have also used them sooth dry, itchy skin and of all things, on my face as a night time moisturizer. It is so easy to pick up a bar and use it wherever I happen to be. In addition, Shelly has been carrying the mini-tube version in his pocket to slather on whenever his arthritis acts up. Healing Lotion Bars make fantastic gifts! I have shared them with friends who now want to make some of their own. (Hint: send your friends to this website!) The Final Word I made multiple small batches of healing lotion bars so I could evaluate each batch without wasting a bunch of raw materials on something that was not optimal. It was not that the less-than-perfect batches were a waste; not at all. One batch was too soft and gushy so I re-melted the bars, adding more beeswax. Another batch did not have enough essential oils and while the bars were a superb moisturizer, I did not feel they would have the soothing and healing affect of my salves. That said, this is a fun and easy DIY recipe that will give you a lot of room for experimentation. Plus, as I mentioned, a healing lotion bar nestled in an organza or cellophane pouch would make a wonderful gift! I hope you will give these a try. After you do, come back and share the results incuding any special combinations of oils that you use. I would love to hear from you and learn from you! Enjoy your next adventure through common sense and thoughtful preparation! Gaye Levy, also known as the Survival Woman, grew up and attended school in the Greater Seattle area. After spending many years as an executive in the software industry, she started a specialized accounting practice offering contract CFO work to emerging high tech and service industries. She has now abandoned city life and has moved to a serenely beautiful rural area on an island in NW Washington State. She lives and teaches the principles of a sustainable and self-reliant lifestyle through her website at BackdoorSurvival.com. At Backdoor Survival, Gaye speaks her mind and delivers her message of prepping with optimism and grace, regardless of the uncertain times and mayhem swirling around us.

unknown

thesleuthjournal.com

2017-11-27

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/how-to-homestead-when-you-rent-part-4/

Gaye Levy

How To Homestead When You Rent: Part 4

When someone talks about desire to homestead, it is easy to conjure up a vision of cows out at pasture, a flock of chickens in the backyard, and an acre of organic crops in the field. At the same time, it is easy to confuse homesteading with living off-grid. Sometimes the two do meet, but more often that not, they are separate and unique lifestyles of their own. Something I have been learning in this series, How to Homestead When You Rent, is that homesteading, as much as anything else, is a mindset where you transcend from being a consumer of things, to a creator and fixer of things. You also become a master in resourcefulness. Today I welcome back the Homestead Dreamer, LeAnn Edmondson, for part 4 of a 5 in the exclusive Backdoor Survival series on “How to Homestead When You Rent.” If you missed Part 1, click here. Part 2 can be found here, and Part 3 can be found here. How to Homestead When You Rent – Implement the Plan A lot of homesteading focuses on growing, harvesting, and preserving food but there is so much more to it than just filling your tummy! There are other aspects where you can take back control over the things you need to comfortably live. What about cleaning products for the home as well as body? Making candles, lotions, and blankets utilizing supplies you didn’t realize you had is part of the fun of homesteading, even when you rent! As we covered extensively in parts 2 and 3, when you have a project you want to accomplish, you need to make the plan and assess your resources. The internet has plenty step by step articles, infographics, and videos to help you through just about any project you can imagine. Begin by researching projects that will use recycled and upcycled items that usually end up in the trash. It is amazing what you can do with something as simple as an old white t-shirt (rag rugs, blankets, padding, cleaning rags) or all those candles that are used up but have some wax left in the jars (melt them all down and make a new one!). When we wanted to increase our water storage, we didn’t run out and buy a bunch of containers. I asked my friends on social media if I could have their 2 liter soda bottles or juice bottles instead. After giving them a thorough cleaning and disinfecting, we filled them up and stored them with the date written on the side. Every 6 months, I empty them out into the garden directly or the rain catch system and fill with fresh. I kept the plastic from going to the landfill and the water is still used. Nothing goes to waste: when the containers can no longer hold water, they will be cut and used in various ways. There is a lot more to homesteading than just food! It is important to keep your project list manageable to avoid feeling like you are failing somehow. It is easy to keep adding to the list but as with all new skills, it takes time! Life gets in the way of being able to complete certain projects and the sooner you acknowledge that, the easier things will go overall. Let’s say you want to start making your own bar soap and laundry detergent. You begin by making up your mind, researching what you need and making the plan on how to gather the items. Assess your resources! Are you a person who enjoys essential oils? You can put those to good use for refreshing scents in your bar soaps! If you use coconut oil regularly in your cooking, you already have a fantastic ingredient, on hand, for making the bar soap (and lotion, too!). As you research the laundry detergent, you learn that when making your own powder mix will require a bar of soap! Finely grated, the bar of soap is combined with other inexpensive items such as washing soda and borax to make a huge batch that will last you a very long time. The best part, it is at a fraction of the cost per load when compared to even the more basic brands. Missing something to complete the project? Don’t run out there and buy anything until you absolutely have to! Consider your network of friends, family, and acquaintances. Does one of them have what you need that you could barter for? Maybe they will be glad to be rid of it and give it to you for free. Using social media to ask larger groups of people increases your chances of finding what you need, too. Need to work on creating a network to draw from? A good support system starts with friends and family. From there, consider these options: Social media groups Local homesteading or farming clubs Your local agricultural extension office Recycling centers and thrift stores For example, instead of buying soap molds in pretty shapes, ask around to see if anyone has extra silicone cupcake molds or liners. We have over two dozen of them and it would be very easy to designate half a dozen to making soap. Don’t forget garage sales, too! There is a real freedom to something as simple as making laundry detergent (and it really is simple!) that most people never consider. Ever try a new detergent and think, ‘This would be perfect if it got a little sudsier’ or wish you could change the scent? When you make your own, you can! To me, it is part of the fun, too. I can keep fine tuning a recipe or completely change it if I want. Whatever will work the best for my household is the goal, not a one size fits all approach. Now and then, you will decide you want to do a project and find that you have absolutely everything you need in your house already. I wanted to make some homemade fire starters because we love to go camping and hiking, not to mention how important having a reliable way to start a fire is in southeast Alaska! The ‘recipe’ called for an egg carton, some dryer lint, some wood shavings, and wax. I was thrilled when I realized I had everything already. It is unrealistic to believe that you will never have to spend money on the resources you need and anyone who says you aren’t a ‘real homesteader’ because you shop is just ignorant. People who live ‘off grid’ here in Alaska and subsistence hunt, fish, and grow food still need to buy resources from a store to keep going. The main difference is they try to either create or barter for what they need and buy as a last resort. Homesteading, no matter where or how you do it, is no different. So you have what you need through your various methods of gathering what you already have and procuring what you were lacking. Now is time to make things happen! It’s important to remember that you will mess things up now and then. Give yourself a little slack, have a good chuckle, and move on. If the homesteaders of old gave up after a few failures, the world would look very different today. Failing is not such a bad thing at the end of the day. There is still real value in what didn’t work and sometimes, you end up discovering something amazing! All of these steps will take you on an amazing journey filled with all life has to offer, including the good and the bad. No one said it would always be easy all the time. The difference between the way you used to live – a consumer just going along with the status quo – to the lifestyle you are now living tends to balance out those frustrating times. Each attempt at learning or implementing something new into the way you live brings with it new confidence, skills, and rewards that you have created for yourself. In Part 5, the last of the series, we will detail all the tangible and intangible rewards your efforts will earn you. Other than having soap and veggies, there is a lot more you get in return that never crossed your mind until you have experienced it! For more about LeAnn, see About LeAnn Edmondson. ………… The Final Word Rather than become discouraged by your inability to purchase a traditional “homestead”, do what you can with what you do have. Whether that is an urban apartment, a rented barn in the countryside, or a seaside cottage of the type I live in, homesteading is a state of mind and a willingness to think outside the box. One other point. As we begin to add skills to our arsenal of preps, think about becoming a homesteader in mind if not in property. Practice being perseverant and couple that with extreme resourcefulness. The stuff many never hit the fan in a major way, but if it does, you will be ready. Enjoy your next adventure through common sense and thoughtful preparation! Gaye Levy, also known as the Survival Woman, grew up and attended school in the Greater Seattle area. After spending many years as an executive in the software industry, she started a specialized accounting practice offering contract CFO work to emerging high tech and service industries. She has now abandoned city life and has moved to a serenely beautiful rural area on an island in NW Washington State. She lives and teaches the principles of a sustainable and self-reliant lifestyle through her website at BackdoorSurvival.com. At Backdoor Survival, Gaye speaks her mind and delivers her message of prepping with optimism and grace, regardless of the uncertain times and mayhem swirling around us.

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/obama-orders-full-senate-torture-report-to-be-shielded-from-public-for-12-years.html/

Obama orders full Senate Torture Report to be shielded from public for 12 years

This post was originally published on this site sott.net/news © Kevin Lamarque / Reuters Those who wished to read the full text of the notorious Senate report on documenting the CIA torture of detainees after 9/11 will have to wait for 12 years. The White House ordered it kept under seal after Barack Obama leaves office. Seven US senators urged the Obama administration to declassify the 6,770-page Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on the CIA’s detention and interrogation program so the public could have a full account of past torture practices. White House counsel Neil Eggleston, in responding to the request, said the president had told the National Archives and Records Administration that access to the classified material should be shielded from public access requests for 12 years. “At this time, we are not pursing declassification of the full study,” Eggleston wrote in a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, California). After 12 years, a record request to Obama’s archives would prompt a process to consider declassification. Senator Feinstein, who spearheaded the investigation and declassification request said she was pleased the report was being preserved in Obama’s archives but acknowledged the rejection for immediate declassification. “It’s my very strong belief that one day this report should be declassified,” Feinstein told the AP. “This must be a lesson learned: that torture doesn’t work.” The 525-page executive summary of the report was released in late 2014 and cited CIA documents that showed the interrogation program was more brutal than previously understood. It provided details on the abuse of 119 prisons, including five men facing trial by military commission at Guantanamo for their alleged roles planning and aiding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Senator Wyden (D, Oregon) said he will start “on the very first day of the new session building a bipartisan coalition to get the study declassified.” “The American people deserve the opportunity to read this history rather than see it locked away in a safe for twelve years. When the president-elect has promised to bring back torture, it is more critical than ever that the study be made available to cleared personnel throughout the federal government who are responsible for authorizing and implementing our country’s detention and interrogation policies,” said Wyden in a released statement. Wyden said “burying the Study achieves nothing but to create an information vacuum that gets filled with uniformed and highly dangerous propaganda.” In a related story, defense lawyers in the September 11 war crimes case at Guantanamo Bay asked a judge last week to secure a copy of the US Senate report before President-elect Donald Trump takes office. “The new administration has made statement promising waterboarding or worse and there are many reasons to believe it is hostile to preservation of the report,” lawyer James Connell. Connell, who represents Ammar al Baluchi, told the military judge presiding over the case who argued The Trump administration would be less likely to turn over the report, or may even seek its destruction. Eight copies of the report were distributed to various branches of government, including the Department of Defense, but the CIA inspector general disclosed that it had destroyed its copy. from https://www.sott.net/article/336662-Obama-orders-full-Senate-Torture-Report-to-be-shielded-from-public-for-12-years

clickbait

twitchy.com

2017-11-27

https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2013/09/27/politico-editor-takes-cheap-shot-at-noted-iran-expert-mitt-romney-over-obamas-rouhani-call/

Posted At Pm On September, Brett T.

Politico editor takes cheap shot at ‘noted Iran expert’ Mitt Romney over Obama’s Rouhani call

Richard Grenell, who served briefly as Mitt Romney’s national security spokesman during his presidential campaign, wasn’t about to let Politico deputy editor Blake Hounshell get away with his cheap shot calling his former boss a “noted Iran expert.” Noted Iran expert Mitt Romney weighs in on today's phone call http://t.co/uQKh5ovqCT — Blake Hounshell (@blakehounshell) September 27, 2013 It’s true that President Obama did speak on the phone today with Iran’s president, which apparently makes him the nation’s ranking Iran expert. In an interview with CNN, though, Romney did caution against trusting Iran, telling Jake Tapper, “You have to be skeptical when people say, ‘We’re just looking for nuclear power,’ when their nation is on a lake of oil.” Noted journalist doesn't critique Obama, but Romney instead @blakehounshell: Noted Iran expert Mitt Romney weighs in on today's phone call — Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) September 28, 2013 @RichardGrenell Decidated journalist @blakehounshell views his job as speaking "truth" to the out-of-power. — jon gabriel (@exjon) September 28, 2013 https://twitter.com/NorthDallas30/status/383766222086483968 It’s possible. Romney was widely ridiculed during the campaign for his warnings concerning Russia and its intentions. John Kerry, now Secretary of State and last seen arguing for a military strike on Syria, said that “Mitt Romney talks like he’s only seen Russia from watching ‘Rocky IV.'” https://twitter.com/NorthDallas30/status/383766698794299392 @RichardGrenell @blakehounshell Note that Romney correctly identified Putin as our main foe, and how he went on to kick Obama in the groin — Tony Schroeder (@schroedertony) September 28, 2013 UN about to pass a Chapter 5 resolution with no consequences, Obama caving to a radical Islamist & @blakehounshell upset about Romney. — Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) September 28, 2013 Yes, what about that, Blake Hounshell? The always quotable Jon Gabriel has a view quite similar to Romney. Beware of Iran, and beware of the lapdog media. Can't wait to see the press rebrand Iran as our cuddly buddy. Look for profiles on the cute pink running shoes Rouhani wore to the UN. — jon gabriel (@exjon) September 27, 2013 The press will promote Hassan Rouhani as the Wendy Davis of the Middle East. #HolocaustBarbie — jon gabriel (@exjon) September 27, 2013 Maybe I'm being too harsh on the woman-beating, gay-murdering, medieval nihilist who wants to destroy America and all Jews. #MyBad — jon gabriel (@exjon) September 27, 2013 Obama has gone from wanting to bomb an Iranian client state to kissing Iran's ass in just two weeks. He has no geopolitical strategy at all. — jon gabriel (@exjon) September 27, 2013 Noted Iran expert John Kerry, what’s your take? Sec. Kerry tells @ScottPelley: "Bad deal is worse than no deal" on Iran's nuclear program http://t.co/wBZ50HuGcS — CBS Evening News (@CBSEveningNews) September 28, 2013 Related: Joan Walsh has brush with gun control self-awareness, beclowns self over Garry Kasparov

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/syrian-army-retakes-15-oil-wells-from-daesh-militants-in-raqqa-province.html/

Syrian Army retakes 15 oil wells from Daesh militants in Raqqa Province

This post was originally published on this site sott.net/news © REUTERS/ Rodi Said Syrian government forces regained control of 15 oil wells, a gas field close to Debsan and pumping stations in the south of the Raqqa province, a Syrian military source told Sputnik Wednesday. Syrian government forces destroyed seven car bombs, a tank and several gun-mounted trucks during heavy fighting against the Daesh militants, the source added. “The Syrian Army is advancing in the south of the Raqqa province. [The Syrian Army] regained control over 15 oil wells, freed the territory of a gas field and two pumping stations in Debsan. The Rmeilan settlement and the Rmeilan dam to the east of Debsan were liberated as well,” the source said. from https://www.sott.net/article/356859-Syrian-Army-retakes-15-oil-wells-from-Daesh-militants-in-Raqqa-Province

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/2017/01/19/wikileaks-live-press-conference-beginning-at-1248-p-m-thursday/

Robert Laity

WikiLeaks Live Press Conference Beginning at 12:48 p.m. Thursday -

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts . Thanks for visiting! “PENDING PROSECUTION” by Sharon Rondeau (Jan. 19, 2017) — As announced on Twitter, the open-government website WikiLeaks will be hosting a press conference on Periscope.tv early on Thursday afternoon during which founder Julian Assange will take questions by Twitter and Facebook. The presser was scheduled to begin at 12:30 p.m. but is running late. Assange had said that he would agree to be extradited to the U.S. on federal grand jury charges if Obama commuted the 35-year sentence of former U.S. Army Pvt. Bradley Manning for releasing over 750,000 pages of classified documents which WikiLeaks subsequently published. The first question speculated about CIA Director John Brennan’s behavior toward Assange. Assange explained that the grand jury which indicted him was convened at the request of the U.S. Department of Justice. He stated that all emails of journalists working for his organization were seized. Assange believes the case against him is manufactured, and an attorney representing him here claims that no information has been released to him. The details of his “pending prosecution” has not been made public, Assange said, because the Justice Department believes it would compromise it. Assange said that he and his attorneys believe that they can overcome any charges lodged against him once they are made public. He said that the case “should never have been brought” and cited the Obama regime’s record of prosecuting three times as many whistleblowers and journalists as all of the previous administrations combined. “This case is entirely bogus,” Assange said at 1:04 p.m. He said he has a First Amendment “right to publish.” Assange said, however, that “There are bad journalists” which he said do not fact-check before publishing and often do not make corrections once they are made aware of an error. At 1:35 p.m., Assange said that the U.S.’s prosecution of him makes no sense since he is an Australian citizen publishing from Europe and not subject to U.S. law.

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/2014/02/06/we-must-defacto-impeach-the-defacto-president-to-start-the-process-to-reveal-to-all-the-enemy-to-the-constitution-within/

Robert Laity

We Must De facto Impeach the De facto President to Start the Process to Reveal to All the Enemy to the Constitution Within -

AND ULTIMATELY REMOVE HIM ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, I.E., HONDURAS STYLE IF NECESSARY by CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. (Ret.), blogging at CDRKerchner (Feb. 6, 2014) — People argue Congress cannot impeach a fraudulent rPresident. I disagree. It may not end Obama’s tenure in the Oval Office solely via completing the total process of impeachment and conviction process by drafting of Articles of Impeachment by the House and then trial in the Senate under the impeachment process defined in our Constitution, but it surely can start the ball rolling to ending his tenure. To those who say you cannot legally impeach an imposter rPresident I say, if Obama assumes he is the President then the Congress can assume to impeach him. And regardless of any assumptions, Obama is the de facto rPresident. You de facto impeach the de facto president to start the ball rolling to break down his house of cards of fraud, deceit, and crimes. As the constitutional outlined impeachment process and proceedings start and proceed against the de facto president, and the full investigations start, people start coming forward requesting immunity to protect themselves for their part in this in return for testifying against him, and the criminal ID document and identity fraud is exposed even more to many many more people, and upon getting copies of all sealed and withheld original records via Congressional subpoenas, the process at some point would blatantly reveal and it would become self-evident to the vast majority of the electorate in this nation and all but his die-hard communist/progressive backers and enablers would admit that Obama is a criminal fraud and national security threat and demand his removal. The newly exposed original documents from the investigation would be damning. Obama would then be indicted if needed under a renewed and activated federal grand jury of We the People process as is also in the Constitution revived by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling upon demand of the People … and/or forced out under the 25th amendment … and/or … if needed, using even more extreme methods if Obama refuses to leave and surrender himself for criminal prosecution. For example, using the unified action of the Congress, Supreme Court, and the military as was used in Honduras. The impeachment process is simply the start of the process of bringing down the liar, fraud, and criminal-in-chief … the de facto usurper resident of the Oval Office. The de facto impeachment of a de facto president is simply away to start the process by those who assume he is a legal president to bring about the collapse of his house of cards of fraud and deceit and crimes. Once exposed other processes can take over. If there is a will there will be found a way under our Constitution to remove the fraud Obama. The impeachment process is simply a start to find the ultimate, final way.

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/the-horrific-price-of-the-mosul-operation.html/

The horrific price of the Mosul operation

This post was originally published on this site sott.net/news © Getty Images Mosul is the second most populated city in Iraq and mainly inhabited by Sunnis. It fell under ISIS’ full control back in June 2014, largely due to the deep mistrust that the indigenous population had towards the Shia government of Iraq. It is in the Great Mosque of Mosul that ISIS’ leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi announced the establishment of the so-called caliphate, that according to his vision, would extend its reach across all of Syria and Iraq’s territory. For some time now, Mosul has remained the principal stronghold of ISIS, therefore Washington would often refer to that city as “the capital of ISIS”. This was done under US President Barack Obama, later announcing an assault on this city during Hillary Clinton’s election campaign, and was presented as a major goal for the US to achieve. The active phase of the operation that aimed at liberating Mosul was initiated by the Pentagon on January 21, 2015. A total of 9,000 ISIS militants were entrenched in the city and instantly surrounded by the 60,000 strong Iraqi army. It should be noted that this impressive force was composed of different units, including 6,000 Peshmerga fighters and up to 10,000 Shia militia fighters backed by Iran. This force was supported by an international coalition force, which included up to 5,000 US soldiers, 3,000 other NATO servicemen and a total of 500 French troops, not including air support. However, in spite of Obama’s bold statements, announcing the city would be liberated long before the US presidential election, the massive coalition force failed to fulfill this goal. Even the “colorful” name that was given to this operation by the White House – Fatah (from the Arabic – “he who opens the door”, one of Allah’s 99 beautiful names) didn’t help. Just the other day, a commander of US-led anti-ISIS international coalition forces, General Stephen Townsend, stated that Mosul would be recaptured from terrorists in the next six months. Before that he was convinced that Mosul would have been liberated by February. The eastern part of Mosul was declared a “fully liberated” zone in the past month. Then all the fighting in the city stopped. An attempt to recapture the western half of Mosul is bound to begin in the next few days, as it’s been announced by Townsend. Townsend has also noted that nothing will end once Mosul is captured, since the international coalition has not fulfilled all of its designated goals in Iraq. He is convinced that the coalition force still needs to wipe out the militants that are occupying about one third of the Euphrates Valley. However, the price that the coalition has paid during the liberation attempts seems catastrophic. Even if we are to believe the data provided by the coalition forces, the attackers have lost a total of 30,000 men killed and wounded, while the losses suffered by ISIS are simply incomparable. The coalition is convinced that their assault on Mosul resulted in the death of no more than 1,300 ISIS militants. The better part of the terrorist forces have moved to the western part of the city or simply “vanished” amid the civilian population. Even though Barack Obama was initially convinced that local armed forces would be able to overcome ISIS resistance, while enjoying limited US military support, it’s obvious that US special forces are becoming increasingly involved in the fight against ISIS, as evidenced by their rapidly increasing losses. For example, last October alone a total of 16 US servicemen were killed in Mosul, while another 27 special forces operatives were wounded. Hundreds of deceased civilians should also be added to the price paid for the liberation of Mosul. Thus, according to the statements of the UN coordinator in Iraq, Lise Grande, up to 47% of all the wounded men in Mosul were civilians, while on average this number rarely exceeds 15-20% in armed conflicts. In the last week of December, a total of 817 men were injured, while in early January, this number grew by another 683 people. It must be noted that the way Washington has been waging the war on ISIS, with the use of “natives” as a main assault force, has already undermined the positions enjoyed by the United States in the region. The war against ISIS is gradually being transformed into a Shia’a vs Sunni religious struggle, which leads to Iran becoming even more involved in the south of Iraq and in Baghdad. However, Washington, in spite of the continuing sanctions against Iran, is forced to turn a blind eye to this fact. The reason presented to US servicemen to motivate them amid the fight, revolves around stopping “absolute evil,” but with little effect. American soldiers were quick to learn that they are just killing local “savage men” which turns the Mosul operation into an episode of yet another Western colonial war. It’s hard to blame them for their reluctance to sacrifice their lives for this cause. The events of 9/11 were used as an excuse by the Western elites to wage wars “for national interests”, forcing the public to believe that the aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan was a purely defensive fight. However, the reality was that young men were sent overseas to fight in colonial wars. All this resulted in a new mobilization of the Islamic World which has always had a huge surplus in human resources. As international analysts note, all these facts show the utter and complete failure of Washington’s policies in Iraq, and in the Middle East as a whole. Martin Berger is a freelance journalist and geopolitical analyst, exclusively for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook.” from https://www.sott.net/article/342453-The-horrific-price-of-the-Mosul-operation

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/something-rotten-in-the-us-this-russia-story-stinks.html/

Something rotten in the US: This Russia story stinks

This post was originally published on this site sott.net/news © Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP In an extraordinary development Thursday, the Obama administration announced a series of sanctions against Russia. Thirty-five Russian nationals will be expelled from the country. President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails. The capital’s paper of record crashes legacy media on an iceberg “These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government,” he wrote. Russia at first pledged, darkly, to retaliate, then backed off. The Russian press today is even reporting that Vladimir Putin is inviting “the children of American diplomats” to “visit the Christmas tree in the Kremlin,” as characteristically loathsome/menacing/sarcastic a Putin response as you’ll find. This dramatic story puts the news media in a jackpot. Absent independent verification, reporters will have to rely upon the secret assessments of intelligence agencies to cover the story at all. Many reporters I know are quietly freaking out about having to go through that again. We all remember the WMD fiasco. “It’s déjà vu all over again” is how one friend put it. You can see awkwardness reflected in the headlines that flew around the Internet Thursday. Some news agencies seemed split on whether to unequivocally declare that Russian hacking took place, or whether to hedge bets and put it all on the government to make that declaration, using “Obama says” formulations. The New York Times was more aggressive, writing flatly, “Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking.” It backed up its story with a link to a joint FBI/Homeland Security report that details how Russian civilian and military intelligence services (termed “RIS” in the report) twice breached the defenses of “a U.S. political party,” presumably the Democrats. This report is long on jargon but short on specifics. More than half of it is just a list of suggestions for preventive measures. At one point we learn that the code name the U.S. intelligence community has given to Russian cyber shenanigans is GRIZZLY STEPPE, a sexy enough detail. But we don’t learn much at all about what led our government to determine a) that these hacks were directed by the Russian government, or b) they were undertaken with the aim of influencing the election, and in particular to help elect Donald Trump. The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up. If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices in both parties are saying this now. © Asahi Shimbun/Getty Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham noted the “small price” Russia paid for its “brazen attack.” The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, said Thursday that taken alone, the Obama response is “insufficient” as a response to “attacks on the United States by a foreign power.” The “small price” is an eyebrow-raiser. Also, like the WMD story, there’s an element of salesmanship the government is using to push the hacking narrative that should make reporters nervous. Take this line in Obama’s statement about mistreatment of American diplomats in Moscow: “Moreover, our diplomats have experienced an unacceptable level of harassment in Moscow by Russian security services and police over the last year.” This appears to refer to an incident this summer in which an American diplomat was beaten outside the diplomatic compound in Moscow. That followed a 2013 case in which a U.S. diplomat named Ryan Fogle was arrested in similar fashion. Fogle was unequivocally described as a CIA agent in many Russian reports. Photos of Fogle’s shpionsky rekvisit, or spy kit – including wigs and a city map that were allegedly on his person – became the source of many jokes in the Russian press and social media. Similar to this hacking story here in the states, ordinary Russians seemed split on what to believe. If the Russians messed with an election, that’s enough on its own to warrant a massive response – miles worse than heavy-handed responses to ordinary spying episodes. Obama mentioning these humdrum tradecraft skirmishes feels like he’s throwing something in to bolster an otherwise thin case. Adding to the problem is that in the last months of the campaign, and also in the time since the election, we’ve seen an epidemic of factually loose, clearly politically motivated reporting about Russia. Democrat-leaning pundits have been unnervingly quick to use phrases like “Russia hacked the election.” © Jonathan Ernst/Reuters This has led to widespread confusion among news audiences over whether the Russians hacked the DNC emails (a story that has at least been backed by some evidence, even if it hasn’t always been great evidence), or whether Russians hacked vote tallies in critical states (a far more outlandish tale backed by no credible evidence). As noted in The Intercept and other outlets, an Economist/YouGov poll conducted this month shows that 50 percent of all Clinton voters believe the Russians hacked vote tallies. This number is nearly as disturbing as the 62 percent of Trump voters who believe the preposterous, un-sourced Trump/Alex Jones contention that “millions” of undocumented immigrants voted in the election. Then there was the episode in which the Washington Post ran that breathless story about Russians aiding the spread of “fake news.” That irresponsible story turned out to have been largely based on one highly dubious source called “PropOrNot” that identified 200 different American alternative media organizations as “useful idiots” of the Russian state. The Post eventually distanced itself from the story, saying it “does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings.” This was a very strange thing to say in a statement that isn’t an outright retraction. The idea that it’s OK to publish an allegation when you yourself are not confident in what your source is saying is a major departure from what was previously thought to be the norm in a paper like the Post. There have been other excesses. An interview with Julian Assange by an Italian newspaper has been bastardized in Western re-writes, with papers like The Guardian crediting Assange with “praise” of Trump and seemingly flattering comments about Russia that are not supported by the actual text. (The Guardian has now “amended” a number of the passages in the report in question). And reports by some Democrat-friendly reporters – like Kurt Eichenwald, who has birthed some real head-scratchers this year, including what he admitted was a baseless claim that Trump spent time in an institution in 1990 – have attempted to argue that Trump surrogates may have been liaising with the Russians because they either visited Russia or appeared on the RT network. Similar reporting about Russian scheming has been based entirely on unnamed security sources. Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration. Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max. But the press right now is flying blind. Plowing ahead with credulous accounts is problematic because so many different feasible scenarios are in play. On one end of the spectrum, America could have just been the victim of a virtual coup d’etat engineered by a combination of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, which would be among the most serious things to ever happen to our democracy. But this could also just be a cynical ass-covering campaign, by a Democratic Party that has seemed keen to deflect attention from its own electoral failures. The outgoing Democrats could just be using an over-interpreted intelligence “assessment” to delegitimize the incoming Trump administration and force Trump into an embarrassing political situation: Does he ease up on Russia and look like a patsy, or escalate even further with a nuclear-armed power? It could also be something in between. Perhaps the FSB didn’t commission the hack, but merely enabled it somehow. Or maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it’s any more believable than anything else here. We just don’t know, which is the problem. We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they won’t hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they’ll use any sucker they can find to get a point across. I have no problem believing that Vladimir Putin tried to influence the American election. He’s gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything. And Donald Trump, too, was swine enough during the campaign to publicly hope the Russians would disclose Hillary Clinton’s emails. So a lot of this is very believable. But we’ve been burned before in stories like this, to disastrous effect. Which makes it surprising we’re not trying harder to avoid getting fooled again. from https://www.sott.net/article/338249-Something-rotten-in-the-US-This-Russia-story-stinks

unknown

thesleuthjournal.com

2017-11-27

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/6634-votes-win-oregon/

The Sleuth Journal

6634 Votes From A Win In Oregon!

Don’t believe everything you read in the papers. We have not yet lost Measure 92, Oregon’s initiative to label GMOs. According to the YES on 92 campaign, we are only 6634 votes (as of 5 p.m. Wednesday, November 12) from a win. If we get to within a margin of 49.80 percent (we’re currently at 49.78!), we’ll trigger an automatic recount, paid for by the state. But here’s the thing. The only way we can win in Oregon is to contact every voter whose vote hasn’t been counted, because it was “challenged” due to a technical problem. There are enough of these “challenge” ballots—about 13,000—yet uncounted, to swing the election in our favor. We need hundreds of organizers on the ground beginning today, to reach out to voters to resolve problems with their ballots, and make sure their votes are counted. And the only way we can make that happen is to hire professional organizers, and pay travel expenses for volunteers. We are so close. There is no guarantee we will win, but a win is definitely still within reach. If we can get all of the votes counted by the deadline, 5 p.m. November 18. We know you’ve already dug deep into your pockets to help this movement. But today, we are asking again. Through our 501(c) 4 lobbying arm, we have promised to rush another $$25,000 to the YES on 92 campaign to make sure we don’t lose this critical GMO labeling battle. If you can help, click here for details on how to vote online now, or by phone or mail. Thank you!

unknown

thesleuthjournal.com

2017-11-27

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/new-bribery-scandal-hits-brazil/

Luis Miranda

New Bribery Scandal Hits Brazil

The findings revealed by the Federal Police portray a fraud scandal as big as the one at Petrobras. An organization of companies that may have defrauded the Brazilian Treasury of some $$6 billion has been dismantled by the Federal Police. According to new revelations, officials are still conducting investigations on at least 70 companies for bribing public officials to manipulate processes that resulted in tax evasion. According to the director of Combating Organized Crime of the Federal Police, Oslain Campos Santana, the new case can be “as big” as the corruption in Petrobras. The operation is investigating at least ten members of the Administrative Board of Tax Appeals, which works under the Ministry of Finance for manipulating files whose intention was to hide tax evasion cases processed by the Federal Revenue Agency. Embezzlement has been proven by the investigation and police suspect that the damage to public funds can be as high as 19 billion Brazilian Reais. “Our investigation began in late 2013 and it points to the existence of strong evidence that crimes are being committed to influence peddling, corruption, conspiracy and money laundering.” Authorities have issued 41 arrest warrants and carried out raids against suspected collaborators in the corruption. Those raids have taken place in the states of Sao Paulo, Ceará and the capital Brasilia. The operation involved 180 officers of the Federal Police and 55 other prosecutors from the Federal Revenue Agency. According to police reports, members of the fraudulent organization allegedly tried to corrupt officials so they would nullify or decrease fines for tax evaders. Police have said that discoveries show how officials leaked privileged information to counseling offices, consulting and law offices in Brasilia, Sao Paulo and other cities so that these would contact companies interested in receiving “special treatment” in trials conducted by the Federal Revenue Agency. Among other services, some couseling offices offered handling processes, granting requests for postponement and obtaining favorable rulings in cases related to tax violations. The group allegedly made use of third parties to conceal their actions and the flow of money, which was laundered and recovered by companies as seemingly legitimate assets. The commissioner in charge of the operation, Marlon Cajado, said meanwhile that the members of the fraudulent organization “sold” tax evaders administrative services to delay prosecution. This new scandal involving tax evasion has been uncovered while Brazil suffers a sizeable political crisis related to the corruption schemes found at the state oil company Petrobras. The Petrobras scandal includes rigging contracts to favor service providers and the distribution of millionaires bribes to politicians and parties, mostly from the base of the government of President Dilma Rousseff. Investigations in the case of Petrobras found the alleged involvement of some 50 politicians, plus several executives of the oil company and other companies in the corruption scheme. The Petrobras scandal has further eroded the popularity of Rousseff, who serves her second term in office. The current investigation by the Federal Police and Federal Revenue Agency has managed to seize 1.3 billion Brazilian Reais in cash in three states. Among the companies being investigated for offering bribes to public officials are banks and others i nthe steel, automotive and agriculture industries. The names of the companies have not been revealed. Earlier this month, Federal authorities in Brazil also dismantled another corruption scheme at the Caixa Econômica Federal, the State’s Federal Savings Bank, which allegedly embezzled 100 million Brazilian Reais. Luis R. Miranda is an award-winning journalist and the founder and editor-in-chief at The Real Agenda. His career spans over 18 years and almost every form of news media. His articles include subjects such as environmentalism, Agenda 21, climate change, geopolitics, globalisation, health, vaccines, food safety, corporate control of governments, immigration and banking cartels, among others. Luis has worked as a news reporter, on-air personality for Live and Live-to-tape news programs. He has also worked as a script writer, producer and co-producer on broadcast news. Read more about Luis.

bias

truepundit.com

2017-11-27

https://truepundit.com/fbi-to-turn-over-anti-trump-dossier-documents-to-congress-next-week/

True Pundit Staff

FBI to turn over anti-Trump dossier documents to Congress next week

FBI to turn over anti-Trump dossier documents to Congress next week FOLLOW US! The Justice Department will turn over documents related to the anti-Trump opposition research dossier by next week, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan said Thursday, giving congressional investigators access to information they’ve long been seeking about the genesis and use of the controversial document. Mr. Ryan, meanwhile, expressed frustration that leaked details about the origin of the dossier have appeared in media reports over recent days, despite months of attempts by the House Intelligence Committee to obtain information about the document from government investigators. The moves follow revelations this week that research behind the dossier, which reportedly had initially been funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary, was paid for subsequently by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. “The FBI got in touch with us yesterday afternoon, and they have informed us that they will comply with our document requests, and that they will provide the documents Congress has been asking for,” Mr. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, said at his weekly news conference. “We expect the FBI to honor that commitment.”

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/threatening-russia-u-s-congress-legalizes-delivery-of-lethal-defensive-weapons-to-ukraine.html/

Threatening Russia? U.S. Congress Legalizes Delivery of “Lethal Defensive Weapons” to Ukraine

This post was originally published on this site Last week, the US Congress approved the Stability and Democracy for Ukraine Act, or “STAND for Ukraine.” As the Ukrainian Embassy in the US has reported, American congressmen unanimously supported the bill. The bill’s list of means for supporting democracy in Ukraine includes the supply of lethal defensive weapons systems. The legislation will come into force following a vote in the Senate and its signing by the US President. From that point on, Washington will be able to officially supply lethal weapons to Ukraine. The act’s adoption was an expected development. After all, it is well known that a Ukrainian lobby effectively works in the US and throughout the West. During his visit to New York, Poroshenko (right) met with representatives of the Ukrainian Diaspora who have had strong positions in American political circles since the end of the Second World War. As a point of comparison, the numerous Russian diaspora in the US and its organizations, and in particular the Congress of Russian Americans, are nowhere close to matching the efficiency of Ukrainian circles’ lobbying activism. The fault for this, in my opinion, can be assigned to both sides, both Russian Americans themselves and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia and other government agencies and non-governmental organizations. It is also important to recognize that numerous Western politicians and economists were included in Ukraine’s administrative organs, all the way up to the ministry level, following the coup d’etat in Kiev. The Ukrainian president’s aides and advisors have proven their effectiveness. One of them is the former Secretary General of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who has the status of a freelance advisor. Rasmussen previously stated that NATO should provide Ukraine with lethal weapons if Russia does not fulfill the Minsk Agreements and continues to “destabilize Eastern Ukraine.” Rasmussen’s statement was a manifestation of Ukraine’s lobbying efforts and organizations in Western countries just as much as it is an element of the West’s overall information policy, the goal of which is convincing Western political circles and public opinion that Russia is a party to the conflict in Donbass and threatens Ukraine’s territorial integrity. As can be seen in the US Congress’ resolution, this is yet another success. Poroshenko can be satisfied with at least this part of his trip to New York. But the experience of American support for “democracy” around the world attests to the fact that the US Congress is in fact promising new bloodshed and destruction for the people of Ukraine and Donbass. Ukrainians have never been good strategists, and this obvious truth has never benefitted the majority. One only needs to look at the experience of former Yugoslavia or that of Libya and Syria to be assured that America’s “benevolence” towards the people of Ukraine will only lead to the further division of the country and new victims. The US is not interested in a strong Ukraine, but in deterring Russia at any cost. For them, Ukrainians are but expendable material, just like the people of Donbass. But what is most interesting for me personally in the US Congress’ resolution is another aspect which somehow found itself on the periphery of the Russian foreign ministry’s attention. Although lethal weapons were illegally delivered earlier, as many Donbass militiamen and even Ukrainian soldiers have exposed, the official green light to supply Ukraine with lethal weapons in fact makes the US a party in the armed conflict in the former Ukraine. Earlier, the US State Department’s participation in the events of the Euromaidan legitimized the coup d’etat and gave a powerful impetus to the ensuing civil war. The burden of responsibility for the coup and the beginning of the civil war, however, must also be put on France, Germany, and Poland, whose foreign ministers signed on February 21st, 2014 the Agreement on Settling the Political Crisis in Ukraine. In so doing, these countries of “united Europe” and the US acted as parties to the political conflict in former Ukraine or, more precisely, its initiators. Probably because of the peace-loving ideological foundations of the Russian foreign ministry, this thesis has yet to be voiced on the international arena. Instead, Sergey Lavrov’s ministry continues to fend off accusations of Russian involvement in the conflict in Donbass. It is difficult to blame the Donbass republics’ foreign ministries for this insufficient line, as they lack diplomatic experience. Yet it is this argument that will emerge in negotiations on the fate of Donbass and will put the blame on the United States for participating in the murder of the peaceful population of Donbass. from: http://www.globalresearch.ca/threatening-russia-u-s-congress-legalizes-delivery-of-lethal-defensive-weapons-to-ukraine/5548573

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/tag/minorities/

Robert Laity

minorities Archives -

HAS “BUYING” MINORITY GROUPS BACKFIRED? by Paul R. Hollrah, ©2014 (Jul. 18, 2014) — In a WorldNetDaily column of July 16, titled, “Why they won’t let us talk to the illegal kids,” talk radio pioneer Barry Farber suggested that, “the reason we in media are not allowed to talk to the children is that the conversation […]

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/2014/10/08/it-starts-with-the-first-grunt/

Robert Laity

It Starts with the First Grunt -

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts . Thanks for visiting! SHOULD SOLDIERS DEPLOYED TO “FIGHT” EBOLA DEMAND OBAMA’S QUALIFICATIONS BEFORE RISKING THEIR LIVES? by OPOVV, ©2014 (Oct. 8, 2014) — Grunt: lowest form of military life; the “bottom of the barrel;” lowest pay-grade; usually referred to as “infantry;” counterpart in the Navy would be an E-2 Seaman Apprentice, one step above a Seaman Recruit, a sailor still in Boot Camp. “No, I’m not refusing a direct order, Sarge. All I’m saying is that I’m more than willing; why, I’m almost volunteering, but, if it’s all the same to you, I just ain’t doing it unless, and this is the deal-breaker, Obama proves to my satisfaction that he really is, first, an American citizen and really Constitutionally eligible to be our Commander-in-Chief and, secondly, he’s not a Muslim.” “No, I ain’t got nothing against Muslims, as long as they stay on their side of the ocean, that is. Look, it’s no big deal to show your real honest-to-God Birth Certificate. You had to do it; everyone in my squad had to do it; all the generals and admirals had to do it; so why doesn’t Obama do it? Out of all the people in our military, everyone showed his Birth Certificate except the Commander-in-Chief? Nope, I just ain’t buying it. Go ahead, ask around.” “You see? Everyone in the squad agrees with me. We ain’t movin’ until we’re satisfied. And, no, we’re not taking his word for it, or any Left-Wing-Loony-Bin organization’s word for it, either. Tell you what: let’s ask everyone in the company.” “You’re surprised? Shouldn’t be. Obama lies, or don’t you get it? Okay, so far we have the company agreeing that we’re not moving out until we get the truth. Let’s step it up a notch and ask everyone on base. You’re not, like, afraid, are you? HA! There you have it: everyone on base has finally decided, no, we’re not getting on any airplane to ‘fight’ Ebola, unless Obama comes clean and proves, once and for all, that he’s not who we think he is.” “You mean you really don’t know? Obama’s a fake, an imposter. Nah, he ain’t even American. How ’bout those Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan, ‘Sand Box Land’, where the Muslims can shoot from a mosque and we can’t call in air support to level it? Why not? You have any idea why not? And don’t give me any of this ‘religion’ nonsense; we just ain’t buying into this ‘misunderstood’ and ‘peaceful’ hogwash anymore, no way.” “Follow orders? Right. Legal orders we have no problem with, but ever since the Joint Chiefs of Staff turned their backs on LTC Terry Lakin, I wouldn’t give you two cents for any silver bars on my collar. In Vietnam they called it ‘fragging,’ because a grenade is like a shotgun: can’t trace it.” “Make up your own mind. All I’m saying is that I didn’t sign up to follow orders from someone I don’t like, don’t respect and, for sure, don’t trust, even to the point to question his being in my country in the first place, legally, that is; and if you’re going to arrest me and put me before the Mast, good luck, ’cause you’re going to have to do everybody in every service.” “No, this ain’t no joke. ‘We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore,’ understand? If I were you, I’d get with the program. You’re on the wrong side here, supporting Obama. See, I’m cleaning my gun, and ‘accidents’ have been known to happen when a Grunt cleans his gun, isn’t that right?” Semper Fi OPOVV

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/gop-senator-marks-two-years-of-russian-aggression.html/

GOP senator marks two years of Russian aggression

Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio marked the two-year anniversary of Russia’s illegal annexation of the Crimea by calling on the administration and European leaders to continue to push for restoration of Ukraine’s sovereignty. “Today marks 2 yrs since Russia’s illegal annexation of #Crimea,” said Portman, who co-chairs the Senate Ukraine caucus, on Twitter. The United States and European Union “must not waver on full restoration of Ukraine’s sovereignty,” Portman added. “As co-chair of the Senate #Ukraine caucus, I will continue to stand with Ukrainians in their fight to build a free and democratic future,” he said in a separate tweet on Friday. Portman’s call comes as the EU marked the two-year anniversary by calling on countries to impose sanctions on Russia for taking the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine. Russia says Crimea is historically Russian land and the status is non-negotiable. More from the Washington Examiner Lawmakers have until April 15 to pass a spending blueprint. 03/19/16 12:01 AM “The European Union remains committed to fully implementing its non-recognition policy, including through restrictive measures,” the European Council, representing all member EU countries, said in its statement, marking the anniversary. “The EU calls again on U.N. member states to consider similar non-recognition measures.” A spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin responded to the Europeans by saying “Russia has not discussed and will never discuss its regions with anyone.” The State Department said earlier this week in a statement that the U.S. “will not accept the redrawing of borders by force in the 21st century.” State Department Spokesman John Kirby said “[s]anctions related to Crimea will remain in place as long as the occupation continues.” “We again call on Russia to end that occupation and return Crimea to Ukraine,” he said. Also from the Washington Examiner The next president will have the most direct impact over labor policy through the National Labor Relations Board. 03/19/16 12:01 AM

fake

beforeitsnews.com

2017-11-27

http://beforeitsnews.com/motor-junkies/2015/12/tesla-checking-seat-belts-at-supercharger-locations-3-2521646.html

Tesla Checking Seat Belts At Supercharger Locations

Tesla Checking Seat Belts At Supercharger Locations (Before It's News) While the press is wringing its hands about how Tesla is recalling every Model S ever made because of a possible seat belt issue, the company is busy doing what Tesla does best — being proactive and getting out ahead of the potential issue. Winner of the Founder Series Model X, Bjørn Nyland has posted a video showing a Tesla representative checking his Model S at a Supercharger station in Norway. Similar accounts from Tesla owners experiencing an ad hoc seat belt service check while Supercharging have been widely reported across the Tesla Motors Club forum. Tesla has recently sent an official letter to Model S owners asking them to bring their Model S to the nearest service center for a seat belt check, but some owners are worried the repair facilities will be overwhelmed by the need to check so a high volume of cars in a short period of time. If you are concerned about whether your seat belts are installed correctly, you can check them yourself in just a few minutes. Tesla’s plan to inspect cars while they are Supercharging is brilliant, because owners are already planning to wait about a half hour while their car recharges. What better way to reduce friction for owners then by leveraging that time to also perform the seat belt service check? Consumer Reports has just removed the Model S from its list of recommended vehicles because it says it suffers from too many reliability issues. At the same time, its own surveys show Tesla owners are happier with their service experience than the owners of any other cars. Aren’t frequent reliability issues and high customer satisfaction mutually exclusive? Apparently not. Most customers understand that problems occur with all manufactured products, especially a product as complex as and automobile and particularly one as new to the market at the Tesla. They are willing to forgive a glitch if the company steps up and remedies the problem quickly and fairly. Oddly enough, Tesla shares declined Friday on the New York Stock Exchange. If those nervous investors really thought about it, though, they should have been buying Tesla stock instead of selling it. Tesla relies exclusively on customer recommendations to market its cars. One of the oldest rules in selling is, take care of the customer and the customer will take care of you. By sending representatives out to check on cars while they are charging, Tesla has sent the clearest possible signal that it intends to take care of its customers very, very well, now and in the future. Photo Credit: YouTube via Bjørn Nyland The post Tesla Checking Seat Belts At Supercharger Locations appeared first on TESLARATI.com. Source: http://www.teslarati.com/tesla-checking-seat-belts-supercharger-locations/

fake

beforeitsnews.com

2017-11-27

http://beforeitsnews.com/motor-junkies/2015/12/model-x-design-studio-has-a-hidden-72a-charger-easter-egg-2-2521648.html

Model X Design Studio Has a Hidden 72A Charger Easter Egg

Model X Design Studio Has a Hidden 72A Charger Easter Egg % of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents. (Before It's News) One Tesla Model X buyer uncovers a hidden 72 Amp charger upgrade in the Design Studio configurator Navigating through the Tesla Design Studio can be fun, mysterious, and depending on what page you are on, what links you click, and what you search for, the results may vary from time to time as the company often introduces new and unexpected items on a whim. Earlier this month, TMC regular FlasherZ reported that the Model X was only available with a 48 amp single phase charger. He wrote, “I received word today (from what I consider a very reliable source) that the 72A charging capability we’ve heard of earlier in the process is not the case, and that Model X will ship with a single charger capable of charging only at 12 kW, or 48A single phase.” Tesla is known to respond to user requests from its owners and would-be buyers. That seems to be the case in a recent discovery made by a Model X buyer looking to wire his home for a second Tesla. Representatives from the company tipped off the buyer that there was a secret easter egg in the Model X Design Studio that would unveil a higher amperage charger. engle from the TMC forum unveils the following: I just called the production configuration hotline. There is an Easter Egg hidden in the production configurator!! ‘We are still recommending the 48 amps a/c charger so we hid the High Amperage Charger Upgrade option’. Just type ‘charger’ (no quotes) and it automagically appears:” “We are still recommending the 48-amp AC charger, so we hid the High Amperage Charger Upgrade option,” a Tesla representative tells the Model X buyer. It appears the high amperage charger must be selected when the car is first ordered. Apparently, it cannot be retrofitted the way a dual charger can be on a Model S. The Tesla Model S optional 80A on-board dual charger is capable of replenishing the car with 59 miles per one hour of charge providing reference to what the 72A Model X charger will be capable of. At the moment, Tesla has not explained why the 72A high amperage charger for the Model X is hidden. The post Model X Design Studio Has a Hidden 72A Charger Easter Egg appeared first on TESLARATI.com. Source: http://www.teslarati.com/model-x-design-studio-hidden-72a-charger-easter-egg/

fake

beforeitsnews.com

2017-11-27

http://beforeitsnews.com/food-and-farming/2013/03/safety-of-the-national-school-lunch-programs-frozen-ground-beef-products-2450016.html

Food Safety News

Safety of the National School Lunch Program’s Frozen Ground Beef Products

Safety of the National School Lunch Program’s Frozen Ground Beef Products (Before It's News) The government’s Agricultural Marketing Service’s (AMS) Commodity Procurement Staff purchases a variety of food products for use in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and other food assistance programs. One of these commodity items is frozen ground beef. All ground beef that is generated for the NSLP is further processed and cooked at other USDA establishments that are inspected by AMS inspectors. This ensures that the ground beef is cooked at an appropriate time and temperature, ensuring that any pathogens are eliminated. There are a number of stringent requirements that USDA-inspected establishments must meet in order to supply the U.S. government with their “excellent conditioned” ground beef. The most formidable of these requirements is the written Technical Proposal itself. If an establishment harvests (slaughters) livestock, further processes carcasses and then grinds the product, it would be a perfect fit. However, if a company is a further processor and grinder or just a grinder, it too can qualify. Plants that are vertically integrated (those that harvest, fabricate and grind) are an ideal fit for the NSLP because these establishments have the ability and skills to monitor the meat’s integrity via multi-hurdle pathogenic interventions during harvesting and de-boning (removal of objectionable materials such as silver skin, neck straps, tendons, etc.) more effectively than further processors. Companies that are only grinders have to rely on finding a qualified and approved outside boneless beef supplier / contractor and hope that that supplier’s HACCP (hazard analysis and critical control points) systems have robust pathogenic interventions that will ensure consistent microbiological acceptability of fresh and frozen boneless beef. The present 2012/2013 NSLP Technical Proposal design started back in 2002. The format is based on the ISO 9001 series. It requires that a company incorporate the plan, do, check and act format from the time a cow is euthanized through the entire continuum of harvesting, fabrication and grinding; leading up to and including the delivery of finished product to its final destination. When the product reaches its final destination, randomly selected shipping containers are checked by an AMS agent to ensure that the product is at 0 degrees F or lower. If it isn’t, the entire load is rejected and sent back to the sender. The company is then issued a non-compliance record that needs to be addressed and documented by the establishment within ten working days. In general, the NSLP is not a forgiving program. However, it does have its rewards. That is, when comparing the price per pound of commercial ground beef opposed to what the government pays – therein lies the incentive. The U.S. government wires compensation within 24 hours or less after final delivery is consummated. Listed below are some other general highlights of the NSLP criteria for ground beef for 2012/2013: - The establishment must write a thoroughly detailed Technical Proposal that describes its unique operations that must be germane to the NSLP and FSIS regulations regarding the product(s) it would like to supply the U.S. government. - Once the Technical Proposal is written, it’s sent to Washington DC for approval. - After the process of approval is finally granted, each company must then schedule what is known as a pre-award audit with an assigned AMS auditor. The audit usually takes one day and includes auditing human handling in the corrals, the harvesting floor, fabrication and grinding operations. The auditor shall also ensure that the company’s written Technical Proposal is accurate to what she/he observes during the audit. The auditor will also check the plants multiple HACCP, SSOP and Prerequisite programs for efficacy, including its food defense program, and will request a private conference with the establishment’s Inspector-In-Charge. - Once the pre-award audit is passed, the establishment is registered on the government’s website with a series of codes that will enable the establishment to bid against other companies for governmental contracts. If a company harvests livestock, it must have a written humane handling program that is based on the American Meat Institute’s (AMI) 2010 Livestock Manual, which is co-authored by Dr. Temple Grandin and the AMI’s livestock committee members. - An AMS auditor will then perform an audit of the company’s livestock program / operations twice a year, unannounced. If the plant fails the humane handing audit, the company is automatically disqualified until it can provide evidence to USDA that it’s capable of passing a humane handling audit. That is, after the company responds to a critical non-compliance record, including future preventive measures. Yet another humane handling of livestock audit is performed before the disqualification status is lifted. - In harvesting, the plant must swab one whole carcass (both halves) for E. coli O157:H7 every harvesting day. It must also have at least two or more pathogenic interventions, i.e. lactic acid spray or hot water pasteurization, that have been validated by a reputable third party laboratory within the last fiscal year and be able to evince a log reduction of 3 logs or more. - In fabrication, each plant must perform N70 testing of each individual bin of boneless beef. Each individual bin is considered to be a lot. The sample sizes must be in conformance with FSIS Directive 10,010 Rev. 3. Each company is assigned an Assigned Designated Laboratory, (ADL) where the samples of boneless and ground beef are tested. Know that the AMS also audits these ADLs at least once a year, and that they must bid for their Government contract as well. NSLP combo bins must weigh at least 1850 lbs., and must never exceed 2250 lbs., with the last combo bin not exceeding10% of 2250 lbs. - Each boneless beef sample must be taken from the surface of the carcass, which cannot be sprayed with an anti-bacterial spray 15 minutes prior to collecting samples. A total of 60 samples are tested for E. coli O157:H7, with the remaining 10 samples tested for Salmonella, generic E. coli, total plate count and E. coli coliform. In the event the product is positive for E. coli O157:H7 or Salmonella, the entire day’s production is rejected. For example, if you take individual N70 samples of each individual 40 combo bin and bin number 36 tests positive for E. coli O157:H7, all of the bins, 1 through 40, are rejected, unless the establishment can proffer scientific documentation / data on why the other 39 bins should still be included for the NSLP program. - On the grinding end, the same pathogens and indicative organisms are tested with the same rejection rules as boneless beef. For every 10,000 pounds of ground beef generated, a composite sample is taken and collected by the establishment during the filling continuum of each sub-lot and picked up by an ADL courier on the same day or the next morning. All samples are held by the AMS agent in a locked, government sealed sub-zero freezer at the establishment until the ADL courier picks up the samples. Every year, around May or June, a NSLP conference, put on by Livestock and Seed, is held in Kansas City, Missouri. It’s usually a two-day conference that delineates any changes for both new and existing suppliers. All establishments that were approved in 2012 must again re-submit a new 2013 Technical Proposal, (regardless if there are changes or not) before they are allowed to bid in 2013. Source:

fake

beforeitsnews.com

2017-11-27

http://beforeitsnews.com/food-and-farming/2013/03/all-federal-meat-inspectors-to-be-furloughed-on-11-scheduled-days-2450018.html

Food Safety News

All Federal Meat Inspectors To Be Furloughed on 11 Scheduled Days

All Federal Meat Inspectors To Be Furloughed on 11 Scheduled Days % of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents. (Before It's News) The nation’s meat inspectors will be forced to take the same days off, possibility shutting down the U.S. meat industry on those dates, the House Agriculture Subcommittee learned Wednesday. In an exchange with USDA Under Secretary For Food Safety Elisabeth Hagen, the committee heard details of the administration’s plan for 11 furlough days that might end up being meatless for everybody since the beef, pork and poultry businesses can only operate when federal meat inspectors are there on the job. Hagen’s comments to the committee are the most detailed to date on how the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) plans to handle the so-called budget sequestration and how much it will cost. As detailed by The Hagstrom Report, Hagen also told the committee that: 11 furlough days, scheduled from July to Sept. 20, will be for no more than one day a week and no more than two days per pay period. 11 furlough days, scheduled from July to Sept. 20, will be for no more than one day a week and no more than two days per pay period. FSIS has decided the fairest plan for the nation’s meat industry is a uniform national schedule. FSIS will likely take a total cut of $$52.8 million or 5 percent of its budget. Furloughs will be required of all 9,212 employees of the FSIS, including 8,136 meat inspectors and others on the front line such as lab technicians Hagen said USDA’s lawyers found no alternative for the furlough plan once they examined both the statutes for meat inspection and the sequester. In response to a question from Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA), Hagen denied reports that USDA had been instructed to make the cuts “as painful as possible.” Meat inspectors have remained on the job during past government shutdowns. Hagen said the sequester is different because Congress has no plans to come up with the money represented by the furlough days. Source:

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2007/2/4/298301/-

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

History for Kossacks: Westward Expansion Edition

But first, a word from our regular moonbat: Hi! Unitary Moonbat here, buried up to my wings in annotated bibliographies and other papers to grade. Thankfully, historioranter guyermo has graciously offered to host tonight's discussion in the Cave of the Moonbat, so pay attention and be nice - I don't want to hear about any "discipline problems" when I get back! - u.m. Now back to programming Manifest Destiny The most important concept to understand before we get into the details is that of "Manifest Destiny," or the belief that it was our divine right to conquer everything between the Atlantic and the Pacific. Thomas Jefferson took care of half of it with the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, bringing the western border of the United States past the Mississippi to the slopes of the Rockies. From Frank Bond, "Louisiana" and the Louisiana Purchase. Government Printing Office, 1912 Map No. 4. Unlike the depiction in this map, the northern extent of the purchase actually went above the 49th parallel and into modern day Canada. This was resolved in 1818 when the British gave The United States the Red River Valley (the one that now separates Minnesota and North Dakota) up to the 49th in return for what little the United States owned above. As might be expected with a country that's only been around for 14 years, acquiring two thirds of the land between two oceans in such a short time lead to the belief that it was the Americans' divine right to the final third, no mater who was living there. This belief grew over the 40 years following the purchase and culminated in the election of 1844. Election of 1844 Historiorant: Some of this has been written about previously by our regular historiorant. Please give it a read if you haven't already. The Democratic platform at the time was embracing the acquisition of the Oregon Territory from Great Britain, the annexation of the Republic of Texas, no further improvements to the federal government, and the re-establishment of a U.S. Bank. The obvious choice for delegates was former President Martin Van Buren, who opposed the spread of slavery but also was against the annexation of Texas (and the diplomatic tensions with Mexico that would result). According to the rules of the convention, a candidate needed 2/3 of the delegates to secure the nomination. Van Buren's opposition to the annexation of Texas guaranteed he would not reach that threshold on the first ballot. Eight ballots later the former Governor of Tennessee, James K. Polk, was nominated. This nomination resulted from the wheelings and dealings of Andrew Jackson. According to Polk's White House biography, it was due to Jackson's realization that Democrats (and Americans in general) favored expansion. Polk's opponent in the general election was Whig candidate Henry Clay, who was nominated unanimously by his party after President John Tyler was expelled from the party due to his vetoes of a national bank. Unlike Polk, who was very outspoken in favor of westward expansion, Clay was more hesitant to take a position one way or the other. Election Map via Wikipedia (copyright info and larger image here) As is apparent, the over-all mood of the country, especially in the slave states, was in favor of expansion. While his popular vote victory was only about thirty-eight thousand, it was a significant electoral victory. Oregon Territory At the time of the election in 1844, the Oregon Territory was jointly occupied by both the British and Americans. The original British claim to the territory was south to the extremely fertile Columbia River. The Democrats claimed the United States had rights as far north as 54 degrees 40 minutes latitude, which led to the popular slogan "Fifty-four Forty or Fight!" Just for context, 54-40 is approximately the southernmost point of continental Alaska, or just north of Prince George, British Columbia. In short, Democrats were claiming rights to half of modern-day British Columbia! An excellent map can be found here. Initially, Polk offered the British a continuation of the treaty setting the border of the United States and Canada along the 49th parallel. The British, reluctant to give up their claim to the Columbia River, declined the offer. In a wonderful move of brinksmanship, Polk adopted the Democratic position of 54°40', which threatened war with Great Britain. Since neither side had major numbers of troops deployed to the area, a war was unlikely. However, justifying the measure as a precaution against war made accepting the 49° boundary easier for the British and their people. Also, the British were able to negotiate to retain the whole of Vancouver Island. Historiorant: The comment about brinksmanship is entirely my position, and others (especially Brits alive in 1846) may see things differently 1st Intermission: Due to the length of this diary, you may wish to get up and grab a snack, check the score, use the restrooms, etc., before continuing. Looking South The build-up to the Mexican-American war has many similarities to that of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Both Polk and Bush were determined to have a war. Both Polk and Bush did their best to make sure they were justified in having their war with Polk performing better in this regard than Bush. Both the Mexican-American and American-Iraqi conflicts involved a decade of disputes, as this paragraph from PBS demonstrates regarding Mexico and Texas: The ten-year existence of this sovereign state further complicated the disputed border. Mexico never recognized the independence of Texas and therefore claimed the 1819 borders as intact. The United States, as well as Great Britain and France, however, did approve of Texas's claim to nationhood. The question remained as to the precise western and southern borders of the nation. In 1836, Texas pressed a frontier claim south to the Rio Grande and west to its source in spite of the lack of historical precedent. This put into dispute the Trans-Nueces region, or the Seno Mexicano, long a part of the Mexican state of Tamaulipas, as well as most of Nuevo Mexico. In subsequent years, Texas legislatures claimed even more Mexican territory, eventually laying claim to the Californias. Starting in 1841, Texas attempted to press its claim to eastern New Mexico militarily, but without success. Historiorant: At my point in this border's history, the sources examined have chosen to emphasize different aspects of what happened and I am now incorporating parts those portions of my aforementioned paper. First, where the sources agree. In 1845 President Polk sent John Slidell to Mexico to negotiate the purchase of the regions of New Mexico and California (the modern American South-west) for approximately $$30 million. Not surprisingly, Santa Anna declined to receive Mr. Slidell. If he appeared to be willing to even consider selling half his country, he would not have survived as President of Mexico. Encyclopedia Americana had this to say: At the same time, he [Polk] threatened the Mexicans with war unless they paid some large and ill-founded claims by U.S. citizens against the Mexican government, suggesting that Mexico could satisfy the claims by ceding New Mexico and California to the United States. When the Mexicans refused to submit to this browbeating, Polk ordered his army to the Rio Grande The White House biography is more, if not wholly accurate: Acquisition of California proved far more difficult. Polk sent an envoy to offer Mexico up to $$20,000,000 plus settlement of damage claims owed to Americans, in return for California and New Mexico country. Since no Mexican leader could cede half his country and still stay in power, Polk's envoy was not received. To bring pressure, Polk sent Zachary Taylor to the disputed area on the Rio Grande Note that the White House version says this area was disputed, while the encyclopedia doesn't. Historiorant:In reading the Encyclopedia Americana version, it seems to me that it implies the Mexican government owed the U.S. New Mexico and California simply because of the intolerable cruelty with which it treated the Texans. Others may see it differently, so beware my bias In fact, the area in dispute was approximately the same size as the modern state of Texas, as you can see in the map below. The United States claimed the Rio Grande was the border, while the Mexican government claimed the territory to the Nueces (modern Corpus Christy). Original image and copyright info here Modern historical context: Imagine India just moved troops 100 miles into Kashmir while an envoy was in Pakistan negotiating to purchase Kashmir at a reduced price because of perceived attacks against Indian citizens. Also, to compensate for the American's technological advantages, imagine Pakistan didn't have nukes. As a result of these troop movements Slidell gets sent home, as Polk knew he would. According to Sam W. Haynes (and mentioned here), this was the event Polk was originally going to use to declare war on Mexico. However, days before he was to do so, Mexican soldiers "crossed the border (the Rio Grande)" and killed several American soldiers in what became known as the Thornton Affair Historiorant: Corroboration to Haynes' assertion may be implied here, but as I am unable to examine the original documents (Polk's diary) this cannot be completely verified. However, the historiant notes that there are similarities between this version of events and Bush's 2002 U.N. resolution regarding Iraq. While Polk got his 'unprovoked attack,' Saddam Hussein never kicked out weapons inspectors, nor did the inspectors find any WMD. War with Mexico With the attack on U.S. troops, Polk has (in his mind) his unquestionable justification for a request for a Declaration of War against Mexico. On May 13, 1846 (19 days later) Congress declared war against Mexico. Mexico was significantly weakened by its war, a decade previous, with Texas. The United States had a greater number of troops as well as better technology. While the Mexicans were using the muskets of the Napoleonic Wars, the United States had begun using rifled barrels and other advances in technology. In June, American civilians in Sonoma revolted against the government of Mexico. This resulted in the very short-lived Republic of California. A month later, U.S. forces routed the Mexican Garrison at Monterrey, leading Californians to abandon the idea of their republic and concentrate on joining the union. By August 1846 we conquered west from the Rio Grande to Santa Fe, New Mexico. By September, we captured Monterrey to the South. Realizing that it was perhaps not the best strategy to fight in the desert for prolonged periods of time, General Winfield Scott searched for an alternate route to the Mexican capital. He found it with the largest amphibious invasion history had seen up to that point. He landed at Veracruz in March and fought steadily inland against Santa Anna until they finally approached Mexico City. During the battle for Mexico City,the assault of Chapultepec Palace by U.S. Marines is the event that inspired the phrase "The halls of Montezuma" for the Marine Corps Hymn. The when the war ended on February 2, 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the final toll of the war for the Americans was 13,000 dead (1,700 from combat). For the Mexicans, the cost was approximately 25,000 dead for the Mexicans, the loss of 500,000 square miles of territory, and approximately 8,000 citizens who remained and became U.S. citizens rather than move, in some cases, hundreds of miles to start over. 2nd Intermission: You're nearly done, so if you think you can make it, go right ahead. Otherwise, take a breather, check the score again, and come back. If I included everything that I wanted or was suggested, you can only imagine how much longer it would be. Political Aftermath Shortly before the end of the war, a Congress not afraid to shirk its oversight duties issued a bill praising General Zachary Taylor that offered the following amendment (emphasis mine): In pursuance of previous notice, Mr. John W. Houston asked, obtained leave, and introduced a joint resolution (No. 4) of thanks to Major General Taylor: which was read a first and second time; when Mr. Schenck moved that the said resolution be referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. Mr. Henley moved to amend the said motion of Mr. Schenck, by adding thereto the following: "with instructions to insert in the said resolution the following: 'engaged as they were, in defending the rights and honor of the country.'" Mr. Ashmun moved to amend the said proposed instructions, by adding at the end of the same the following: "in a war unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United States." And the question was put, Will the House agree to the amendment offered by Mr. Ashmun, And decided in the affirmative, Yeas ... 82 Nays ... 81 Freshman Congressman Abraham Lincoln, who had been against the war all along, voted in the affirmative. However, the in Illinois the war was extremely popular and he did not seek an additional term as Congressman. In 1848, General Taylor won the Presidency while running on the Whig platform, defeating Democrat Lewis Cass in the process. There were a few reasons Polk declined to run a second term. One reason was that some of the American sentiment had favored the annexation of the whole of Mexico. Another was the anti-war movement mentioned later on. Knowing he would never satisfy either segment, Polk declined to seek a second term. It was just as well, since he died in June 1949, two months into what would have been his second term. Here is the graphic for that campaign, just for comparison. And yes, Martin Van Buren continued to flog his dead horse by running again with the only party that would have him. Original image and copyright info here Ulysses S. Grant had the following to say regarding the Mexican-American War(again, emphasis mine): In taking military possession of Texas after annexation, the army of occupation, under General Taylor, was directed to occupy the disputed territory. The army did not stop at the Nueces and order to negotiate for a settlement of the boundary question, but went beyond, apparently in order to force Mexico to initiate war. It is to the credit of the American nation, however, that after conquering Mexico, and while practically holding the country in our possession, so that we could have retained the whole of it, or made any terms we chose, we paid a round sum for the additional territory taken; more than it was worth, or was likely to be, to Mexico. To us it was an empire and of incalculable value; but it might have been obtained by other means. The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times. Grant's Memoirs, Chapter 3 pp 19-20 Indeed, Grant's statements seem justified if you look at the the names of some of those who fought in the Mexican-American war as junior officers or enlisted men and later became involved in the Civil War: Ulysses S. Grant, George B. McClellan, Ambrose Burnside, Stonewall Jackson, James Longstreet, George Meade, and Robert E. Lee, and future Confederate President Jefferson Davis. Historiorant's Thoughts and Miscellaneous Notes In researching my paper (I can't mention all of the sources I used for that paper because some of them are print sources that are inaccessible from my current location) it was strikingly clear that Polk wanted California and New Mexico by any means necessary. If he couldn't blackmail Mexico, he would lure them into a war. As I noted above, President Bush had pretty much the same philosophy regarding Iraq, only he went ahead after his provocation failed thanks to the Iraq War resolution passed by Congress in October, 2002. If Mexican forces had not attacked our troops, President Polk would have been in a nearly identical situation and, presumably, would not have gotten his Congressional declaration of war. Presidents James Polk and Zachary Taylor are among the most hated Americans in Mexico for their parts in the conquest. Celebrated in Mexico are the Niños Héroes, six teenagers who died on September 13, 1847 defending Chapultepec Palace as military cadets. President Truman visited their memorial in 1947, the first President to do so, with Bill Clinton repeating 50 years later. Truman's visit makes him the most popular American President in Mexico. Historiant:Some sources say that they didn't die defending the palace but rather committed suicide, while one makes reference to a belief that they may have been a myth. From what I hear (I cannot speak from personal experience) the resentment towards Americans can still be quite strong, especially considering the discovery of gold San Francisco in January 1848 (only a couple weeks prior to the conclusion of the war) and the great gold rush only one year later. A common, but incorrect belief is that the often used slur "gringo" began being applied to Americans during the Mexican-American War. The justifications for and prosecution of the Mexican-American war greatly bothered President Grant: For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure [the annexation of Texas], and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. Grant's Memoirs, p 18 link Some might argue that this distinction has been replaced with Operation Iraqi Freedom, now one of the most inaptly named military operations in history. Another interesting parallel between the this war and the current conflict: Despite early popularity at home, the war was marked by the growth of a loud anti-war movement which included such noted Americans as Ralph Waldo Emerson, former president John Quincy Adams and Henry David Thoreau. The center of anti-war sentiment gravitated around New England, and was directly connected to the movement to abolish slavery. Finally, if your eyes allow, I highly recommend reading Lincoln's speech on the House floor regarding holding President Polk accountable for our questionable entrance into the Mexican-American war. I should also add that, prior to researching this presidency, I had very little idea of the circumstances regarding this war. It was through the natural discovery of the events, and seeing the differences in the reference material that I realized how controversial this war was to its contemporaries and how controversial it remains today.

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2005/4/22/108677/-The-China-Syndrome

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

The China Syndrome

So what is all of this really about? What it is really about, from the perspective of the "players", the people with a great deal of liquid wealth, is that China as a competitor for labor is just fine, but that China refuses to open its capital markets so that they can go in and buy up half the country while share prices are still very low, and the Yuan much weaker than it will otherwise be - is a problem. The top of the global economy has made a series of killings off of a process of "thatcherization". What is it? And how does it work? The top of an economy is different from the bottom of an economy: on the bottom there is a constant negotiation between how much a good is worth to a consumer, and how much it costs to make it. Consumers have been losing this game for quite some time, paying a great deal more than they could really afford for a variety of goods, but it is still a fairly narrow band. The top of an economy is different - it is about information, and everything is bought or sold by competitive bidding of one kind or another. You are really rich, when you buy everything at auction. The top of the economy buys and sells economic information - that is, the ability to get control of capital, or a revenue stream of some kind. In a subsistence economy, because there is much less trade, much less capital, and much less development, there is not a great deal of money flowing around at the top. The rich in a subsistence economy basically have wealth to buy luxuries and to buffer against ups and downs in their political fortune. They don't have that much money compared to the size of the total economy. The very, very apex of a subsistence economy may compete with the wealthy of outside countries, but the rest of the economic elite are not that rich on a comparative basis - and there aren't that many of them. More over, the bottom of the economy puts almost nothing into the capital and debt markets. The upshot of this is that the cash price of the capital in a subsistence economy is quite cheap - subsistence economy companies regularly trade for values which are below the liquidation price of the company. Even in developing economies the situation isn't that much better - companies will often trade for below book value. The reason for this - a much smaller wealthy class that owns much more of the total - means that a subsistence economy, or even many developing economies - is well undervalued in terms of the real value of the companies. In essence, unless the subsistence or developing economy protects its assets, it is ripe for being swooped down on and bought up. And this is what the process of thatcherization is about - force a country to open its markets, which will make it run a trade deficit, which will mean it will, sooner or later, have to open its capital markets, at which point key assets can be bought up rather cheaply. This is the basis of the developed world's arbitrage of the developing world - buy up at illiquid hard currency starved prices, and turn around and charge first world prices for the results. Most countries fall into this pattern. The successful ones become export tigers, selling back to the developed world, socking away trade surpluses to buy resources and capital, and eventually having enough internal economy to float their own markets upward. It sometimes takes an IMF bail out or two to accomplish, but, in a paradoxical way, a financial crisis helps them out - by shaking out a great deal of the foreign hot money, it puts more of the assets of the country back in local hands. The less successful ones become resource producers, with a wealthy local elite that does business with the outside, and a vast mass of much poorer people who are stuck in a subsistence mode. There may be periodic reactions against this to some kind of marxist or heterodox left government, but these generally sink back into line rather rapidly. This brings us to the few exceptions to the rule. One exception are the well capitalized peripheral manufacturing countries - Australia, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and Canada, as the successful versions, and Brazil as a rapidly emerging exception. These countries find a niche and stick to it. The other class of exception, which weighs more heavily on the world economy, are those nations with resources that are sufficiently desired in the West, and with sufficiently small stakeholder classes to enforce discpline. The oilarchies of the Persian Gulf, and China. These countries do not have to join the world economy, they don't need to import some key good from the outside, and they work very hard to keep their populace from wanting too much in the way of outside goods. These countries are allowed to be pure mercantilist states - selling, but not buying, from the outside world. It's a very good deal for them - the loose change that is extracted from the loser economies - the United States and the losing developed world economies - flows into their hands, and piles up. China's huge supply of cheap labor and cheap land - let us not underestimate how those two go hand in hand - was enough to put enormous downward pressure on wages in the developed world. But, for a long time, its companies were not players on the global scene. They were regarded as mere "outsourcing" - a word which indicates how the economic elites of the outside felt about them, mere chop chops to churn out parts. That has changed rapidly in the last few years, Chinese companies have begun reaching out, and creating branding and organization that will, eventually, rival the US. They are going to use their labor advantage to undercut western firms on development, and in effect, start the developed world arbitrage system for themselves - pay low interest on money borrowed, use internal advantages to develop other countries that earns higher interest. This, unlike cheap wages, is a panic level threat to the meso-structure of the world economy. Let's not spin conspiracy theories - this is caused by people at the top seeing the same things, and coming to the same conclusion - unless China can be forced open, and bought into, it will have the perfect storm - ability to export, and the ability to protect its corporations from being bought up until it has enough money to float its stock exchange. China has used Hong Kong as a way to raise needed money from the outside world, but not put control of its "Red Chip" companies in the hands of others. It has used manipulation to keep the Shanghai exchange as a farm for extract excess money from anyone who is inside of China. It has also paid a price for this - China's development in terms of Purchasing Power Parity growth lags behind the development of other tiger economies over similar spans. But the difference is that China is getting something for that slower growth, namely an internal economy under its control, rather than being subsidiary to other economies. It is not that their current course is the only way to do this - other tiger economies have eventually gained control over their political and economic affairs - but it generally takes a generation to do this. The leadership of China is not interested in having this happen. Forcing the Yuan to float is, then, only half the picture. The other half is that the outside world wants to start charging China a great deal more for intellectual property. A floating Yuan, in itself, doesn't do very much, other than make it so that China can increase inflation by buying more oil and resources. It will slow, by a little, the Chinese edge in labor and land prices, but there is so much cheap labor in China, that they will be able to simply relocate more factories farther inland. The reason this second part is so crucial is that in order to force open China's capital markets, there needs to be something that China needs to buy with foreign hard currency, and the thing that China's economic elites want is access to capital and technology. Until now China's loose way with other people's "intellectual property" was winked at, because the losses were small compared with the labor and rent savings. Now, however, these losses are no longer acceptable - the West cracks down on piracy when it ceases to be profitable to allow piracy. So how does this play out? Not well for the West, it is far too late for them to pull out of China, the increases in production cost would either spark general consumer inflation, or gut corporate profits, or both. Since China's leadershp knows this, and knows that if one country pulls out, others will come in just as fast, it has no reason to move on either IP or floating the Yuan any faster than is convenient. The leadership in China faces a different problem - a country that is coming apart at the seams, with hundreds of millions of people in poverty. It has to supply them jobs, or they will rebel. It can buy time by playing the nationalist card, but not a great deal of time. Thus, it has no incentive in allowing its capital to be bought up, and having money flow out of the country as interest, just to get short term access to hard currency. What happens net? China will undoubtedly make a few concessions, slow its economic growth a bit, raise nationalist issues to keep people from focusing their anger at the current government - but will hold firm on the bottom line, which is that China is going to enter the world as a superpower in about 20 years, and owe almost nothing to the outside world.

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2005/4/22/108817/-What-the-Darfur-Accountability-Act-Means

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

What the Darfur Accountability Act Means

Genocide is an inconceivable crime. You can try to wrap your head around it, but the sheer cruelty of exterminating a people and culture is so alien to what we know that it is nearly impossible to render it real. The struggle to even call the crime genocide shows this. Historically, the strategy of genocidal perpetrators is to deny the crime by ridiculing the idea of genocide itself. Surely no one would do this, they argue, and it's hard not to believe them. Who could be so cruel? Yet the logic of mass slaughter exists, and is aided by aparthy masquerading as disbelief. The act of the global community in naming the situation in the Sudan as genocide is therefore a large victory. Still, even when genocide is considered, the crime is so big, so morally horrific, that it seems unconquerable and unstoppable, looking like a tangle of warring parties instead of an assymetrical slaughter of the innocent. This bill - and the action of my Senate colleagues - is beginning to overcome this inexcusable attitude that has prevented effective action against genocide many times this century. One big myth about genocide is that it is unstoppable. The reality is that those committing this genocide could be stopped with a relatively modest intervention, and deterred by the threat of real sanctions. The Darfur Accountability Act provides this deterrent. The act provides for sanctions against those responsible for genocide, calls for a new UN Security Council resolution imposing sanctions against the Government of Sudan and a high-level U.S. diplomatic initiative to achieve that resolution, calls for a military no-fly zone over Darfur, calls for the extension of the arms embargo to cover the Government of Sudan, and calls for the expansion of the mandate of the African Union force in Darfur and UN troops to include the protection of civilians. Our failure to intervene in Rwanda eleven years ago only taught warlords around the world that what they do to their own people may cause handwringing in the West, but nothing more. This act, if it is included in the final version of the supplemental appropriations bill, will begin to undo that morally perverse lesson. At the same time, acting on this matter is good for our national security. Failed states are fertilizer for terrorism and instability, and can only be fixed with the type of global engagement and cooperation this act implies. Additionally, potentially catastrophic problems, such as global warming, new diseases of epidemic proportions, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, can only be addressed within a global context. Like the moral travesty of not acting to prevent genocide in Darfur, these problems are nonpartisan and affect every person on the planet. It is especially heartening therefore that there is bipartisan support for this bill - my cosponsor in passing this legislation was Senator Sam Brownback. President Bush's second term carries with it the opportunity for us to work with the international community on a range of critical issues, including the genocide in Darfur. Whether we as a global community can do so will determine whether this young century is one of prosperity or one where we seek to manage the horrific consequences of the global catastrophes that today we may be allowing to spiral out of control.

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2005/4/24/109240/-Brothers-and-Sisters

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

Brothers and Sisters,

We pray* for the Church, and for the communities in which we participate.You have called us to take part in their lives,and despite our failures, you have not cast us off. Tell out, my soul, the greatness of the Source of Love; Rejoice, my Spirit! We know that much of the Church's life and witness looks silly and weak in the eyes of the world at large, but you still use its foolishness to shame worldly wisdom and its weakness against the abuse of power. Empower us to do the same. Tell out, my soul, the greatness of the Source of Love; Rejoice, my Spirit! We pray for those who cry desperately for salvation, for tyranny to be overthrown, for the despised to be given dignity, for the poor to receive a proper share of the earth's resources. Grant us hope and inspiration to action. Tell out, my soul, the greatness of the Source of Love; Rejoice, my Spirit! We bring you particular needs: for Michelle and Allie, facing sudden losses in their families, for Meteor Blades and his family, as they continue to heal after a devastating car crash. For all our friends who are sick, hurting, or despondent, And for all we name tonight... With confidence we share these with you,knowing of your compassion for all people. Tell out, my soul, the greatness of the Source of Love; Rejoice, my Spirit! We pray for our families... Recognizing that Jesus' human life brought both pain and joy to his earthly relatives. Help us also to know you in both the joys and the pains of family. Tell out, my soul, the greatness of the Source of Love; Rejoice, my Spirit! We remember those who have died... Through our sorry and sense of loss we are glad for the promise that there shall be an end to death, and to mourning and crying and pain; for the old order has passed away. Tell out, my soul, the greatness of the Source of Love; Rejoice, my Spirit! We pray at last for ourselves, that we might be filled with a spirit of love, that we might not be overcome with bitterness, division, enmity, that we may pray for and love our enemies, now and always. Tell out, my soul, the greatness of the Source of Love; Rejoice, my Spirit! *meditate, hold in good and active thought

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2005/5/4/111523/-Boston-Globe-is-a-must-read-today

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

Boston Globe is a must read today

The Schlesinger report of last August has been the only high-level civilian review of prisoner mistreatment. But all four members of that panel were members of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board, and their report came before the full extent of abuses was clear. Congress must put partisanship aside and appoint a blue-ribbon commission including members of Congress and human rights advocates to prove to a world increasingly cynical about US ideals that the nation can -- fairly and unflinchingly -- examine and correct its own human rights abuses. The first item is an editorial entitled An Indefensible Outcome , and is the editorial's staff's reaction to the guilty plea by Lynndie England and what it means for our full undesrtanding of Abu Ghraib. Let me offer the final paragraph The next, an op ed by the superbe Derrick Jackson, is entitled Kenneth Clark's Unfilled Dream. In it Jackson talks extensively about how the use of the N word is a betrayal of that which Clark worked so hard to correct. I offer below three selections, including the first paragraph and the last two: THE MOST twisted moment of Kenneth B. Clark's historic psychological research was when he showed a black doll to a black boy in Arkansas. Clark said the boy pointed to the doll, smiled, and said, ''That's a nigger. I'm a nigger." Clark did not work hard to see black people sell themselves cheaply. Sure, racism, bad public schools, and lack of jobs in central cities continue to play a terrible role in depressing black opportunity. But that cannot excuse the fact that all 10 of Billboard's Top 10 rap singles artists at the close of 2004 use the n-word on their uncensored albums. James Baldwin once wrote, ''You can only be destroyed by believing that you really are what the white world calls a nigger." When all Top 10 rappers use the n-word, including Kanye ''Jesus Walks" West, that is a depressingly wide swath of destruction. Many of the top rappers and hip-hop artists who use the n-word were in the Top 20 of the general Billboard 200 at the end of 2004, such as West, Outkast, Jay-Z, and G-Unit. Often, the n-word is used in conjunction with glorifying violence. This cannot bode well for the future. Schools a half-century after the Brown decision have become more segregated. The image of black males in the privacy of headphones is more perverted than ever. At some point a black child hears the n-word enough and decides -- through bad grades, pregnancy, or crime -- to destroy himself or herself. At some point a white boy or girl hears the n-word enough and decides -- when they become adults and leaders of industry -- that those people are not worth their time. Clark tried to show us a twisted mirror a half-century ago. It is time for parents, civil rights groups, and America to pick up this mirror and smash it to bits. Next is an op ed by middle of the roader Scott Lehigh entitled Checks and Balances which comes out firmly in support of the filibuster as a protection against tyranny and one clearly intended as such in the design of the Constitution. Let me offer three short paragraphs from the middle of the piece to give a sense: Actually, the Senate was specifically designed to resist that sort of domination by the majority. Worried about the power of an unchecked executive and the runaway passions of the people, the Founding Fathers devised an institution strong enough to counter both. Indeed, their study of history had taught them that no republic had long endured without such a senate. The Senate, James Madison told the Constitutional Convention, would ''protect the people against their rulers" while also protecting ''the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led." Finally, an op ed by Robert Kuttner entitled Not Rich? Not Poor? Watch out. It is a devastating analysis of Bush's Social security proposal. I will offer three selections to give a taste: THERE IS one useful thing about President Bush's ''progressive indexing" proposal for Social Security. It finally makes explicit what we suspected -- that Bush intends benefit cuts for most American workers in order to finance his privatization plan. Privatization, let's recall, requires either new taxes or increased government borrowing or benefit cuts -- you can't spend the same money twice. Under the present system, payroll taxes pay the cost of Social Security retirement checks. Bush would divert some of that tax money to optional private accounts. Consequently, privatization would worsen Social Security's modest projected shortfall by trillions of dollars unless benefits are cut. For example, someone with an income of $$36,500 -- roughly the median -- would get a 13 percent benefit cut by 2030, a 21 percent benefit cut by 2050, and a 40 percent cut by 2080, depending on when retirement began. An upper-middle-income earner with a current income of $$90,000 would get steeper cuts: 24 percent by 2030, 41 percent by 2050, and 60 percent by 2080. And these cuts would apply whether or not you diverted part of your payroll taxes to private accounts. These would be cuts in the guaranteed part of the benefit. Why did Bush finally admit the need for benefit cuts? His privatization plan has not been getting good reviews. His own political base includes people worried about fiscal irresponsibility. His strategists evidently calculated that of the three possibilities -- higher taxes, greater borrowing, or benefits cuts -- the last option would be the most palatable if it could be camouflaged as merely a technical change in indexing for inflation and its impact postponed for decades. Judging by the White House spin, there is one other coy reason. By retaining the present benefit structure for the lowest-income wage-earners, George W. Bush can present himself as a friend of the poor. I urge in the strongest term that kossacks take the time to go read all of these pieces. And you might find it wortwhile to signup for an email notification of the contents of the Globe so that you don't have depend on people like me to inform you when there are riches such as this available.

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2005/5/5/111990/-It-Begins-Dems-Excommunicated-From-Church-updated-w-VIDEO

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

It Begins: Dems "Excommunicated" From Church? [updated w

[Ed]: This thread is unwiedly. I've started a new thread here with action items. For those that thought that there has not been a full scale war lanched against liberals; for those who didn't take the radical right's promise to "eradicate liberals" seriously, I present to you, Exhibit A: East Waynesville Baptist Church has just kicked out all its Democratic members. Yes. You read that right. If you didn't vote for Bush, you had to "repent your sin". And finally, they figured why deal with the liberal sinners at all.. From libnnc over at DU: "One of the local women who got excommunicated said on TV that it was like a cult. Another man who got excommunicated said that the rest of the congregation stood up and applauded as the Democrats were told to leave." The news report has been confirmed by others on that thread. The broadcast @ 11 pm on WLOS will run the story again.

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2005/4/25/109347/-Can-they-hear-us-now

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

Can they hear us now?

I am following up on my post from a few weeks ago about protecting bloggers. I was so pleased that people understood my strong desire that there be no interference with blogs. I really appreciated the feedback and valued your voices on this issue. I read with interest Kos's recent post where he writes that I'm someone who wants to restrict blogging. That just isn't true. I respect Kos's opinion and was sorry to read that he has that impression. For my part, I intend to be a force to make sure that vigorous and free-wheeling blogging will continue without interference. After all, I've just begun to blog!

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2005/5/6/112060/-Democratic-Church-Purge-Part-II-Action-UPDATED

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

Democratic Church Purge Part II: Action [UPDATED]

The pastor, Chan Chandler, is around 31 years old. Apparently, he told the members of the church that if they voted for John Kerry or were Democrats, they were against the church. They had a choice to "repent" their sin or leave. Why should we care? Because this is more about a rogue (hopefully!) church in North Carolina. We have a duty to stand by and support our fellow Democrats and liberals. We have to stand up for Democrats of faith and against the politicization of religion. [Ed] Moreover, as many people astutely pointed out downthread, this not only is something we have to deal with as Democrats, but something that should not have been done /regardless of political affiliation/. The Democrat in me is offended by this, but I would be just as upset if the organization had expelled them for being Republicans, or Greens, or for any political reason. This is a broader issue than "they kicked out the Dems," and I thank those in the thread that emphasized that point. Yesterday, we were shocked and outraged. Today, we act. To that end, I urge all to take the following action: 1. Contact the IRS. Let's make a paper trail. 2. Contact the ACLU in North Carolina at this address: [email protected] 3. Write a letter to the local newspaper. 4. Contact North Carolina Senators Burr and Dole and urge them to investigate the possibly illegal action and to denounce the intolerance: Richard Burr (R-NC) (202) 224-3154 online contact form Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) (202) 224-6342 online contact form 5. Contact Minority Leader Harry Reid. He should know about this. Harry Reid (D - NV) (202) 224-3542 online contact form 6. Contact your local media and the national media as well: 7. Contact the East Waynesville Baptist Church itself. Let's be polite, but let's tell them how wrong their action is: 175 Woodland Drive Waynesville, NC 28786 828-456-6841 The minister's address/number is being floated around online. PLEASE don't call him up directly at his home. We can't let outrage fatigue curb our action on this. This is part of a wider pattern of discrimination against liberals and progressives: Yesterday alone, we saw not only the expulsion of Demcrats from this one church, but also: *Church and pro-life groups have pressured to deny a Judge communion, reportedly because he allowed a 13 yrd old to have an abortion .link. (thanks to route66 for the tip) *Kansas Governor Sebelius was to give a commencement speech, until she was "uninvited" because of pressure from the Archibishop because she's pro-choice. Read Ohiocrat's diary here. We can dismiss it as those "crazy fundies" or we can come to the aid of our fellow Democrats and declare that intolerance--whether it be in a church hall or the halls of Congress--is unacceptable to the Democratic Party. Update [2005-5-6 17:19:44 by georgia10]:: AP story up here. During last Sunday's sermon, he acknowledged that church members were upset because he named people, says he'll do it again because he has to according to the word of God. [...] A former church treasurer says she's at church to worship God and not the preacher. Chan Chandler, pastor of East Waynesville, had been exhorting his congregation since October to support his political views or leave the church, said Selma Morris, a 30-year member of the church. “He preached a sermon on abortion and homosexuality, then said if anyone there was planning on voting for John Kerry, they should leave,” she said. “That’s the first time I’ve ever heard something like that. Ministers are supposed to bring people in.” The Citizen-Times article gives the smoking gun for why this organization should have their tax-exempt status revoked:

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2005/5/10/113071/-Downing-Street-amp-King-George-A-Duty-to-Impeach

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

Downing Street & King George: A Duty to Impeach

The Downing Street memo has led some to deliberate whether impeachment is called for. I myself initially thought it just substantiated what I already knew, that it would receive little attention, and that we would have to trust those historians decades from now to write the President's history as it deserves to be written. But then, I re-read the Declaration of Independence. And it was this excerpt that stuck me: Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ...When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Our forefathers believed that when the Government became self-serving and when that Government ceased to fulfill the intent of its creation, that we have not only the right, but the duty to throw off such a Government. They fulfilled their duty through armed revolution. They gave us a tool that was unavailable to them: impeachment. That duty to change the Government comes from natural law; it comes from the duty we have not only to each other, as citizens of the same soil, but also the duty we have to the rest of the souls on this earth. That duty exists for us, as well as for our brothers and sisters in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Iran, in North Korea, and those in every corner of the earth that are threatened by this corrupt regime. Is what President Bush has wrought on this country any less severe than that of King George, that which made our forefathers realize that enough was enough? There he is--our King George--who has along with the radical Republicans, curtailed our liberties, our freedoms, and the very essence of Americn identity. This memo is a small piece, but a critical one. While President Bush admitted prior to 2002 that his intent was regime change, this memo unequivocally proves that the President lied to the American public when he said, up until the last days before Shock & Awe, that he was holding out for a peaceful resolution: America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. link We now know, from the Downing Street memo, that it was not only Saddam, but the President of the United States who "chose confrontation." We now know, from the memo, that the President lied that day, on March 17, 2003, when he addressed our Nation and told us that "every measure has taken been taken to avoid war." Every measure, my friends, was taken to engage in war. It is because of that lie that over 1,500 of our brothers and sisters have given their lives. It is because of that lie that over 12,000 more of them have returned to us maimed and scarred. And it is because of that lie that over 100,000 innocent Iraqis have been killed in our name. Some say that with a Republican-controlled Congress, pursuing impeachment is futile. Did our founding fathers cower under the foreboding force of King George? Did the fact that King George had fleets of armies and oceans of power give them pause? Did they fear failure, knowing that failure would brand them traitors and take them to their death? We have a choice. We can either let courage fill our hearts and pursue what we know is our duty, or we can let this evidence be filed away in the mountain of evidence that proves that this man, this liar, should not lead our nation any longer. I thought I could live with accept the media's failure to report this; I thought I could live with telling myself that all would be vindicated in 2006 and 2008--but I cannot live like that. I can't live knowing that I am a coward in the face of far less danger than our forefathers faced. I, for one, support the impeachment of President Bush. Who among you will join me? crossposted at akou.

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/10/9/1142471/-Obomney-Debate-Debacle

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

Obomney Debate Debacle

Ok so after being gone for 5 days (thursday to monday night) I get back to civilization and hear an uproar in the blogosphere about Obama "loosing" the debate, badly. Well for someone who is more then a little politically minded, I must admit I hate political debates. If I wanted to watch two guys speaking in endless platitudes I would go to church or watch christian television. Furthermore the era of Bush Jr or as we said in Mexico "micro-Bush" (pronounced like microbus) has probably permanently ended my ability to take Republicans talking in public seriously, and sadly often Dems are not much better. However as an Obama vote in 08 I am pulling for my boy in Blue and even though as a closet Green in a safe state, I have toyed with casting a protest vote for Stein, I hope in my heart of hearts that President O gets another 4 years and I shudder over the alternative... So while at work today I pull up youTube and listen to the hour and a half political fracas on headphones without any visuals. What did I hear? Obama kicked Romney's ass. Yes he mopped the floor with him and then poured sour swiss cheese shavings in his mouth. Romney's voice sounded like a whiney little baby. He avoided nearly every question and sounded belligerent and nasally. Obama's deep baritone was smooth, coherent and collected. He directly answered questions calmly and concisely. He offered rebuttals that were clean, well organized and timely. He defended his stances on everything from health care to solar energy and showed his cohesion to his principles of supporting the middle class. Romney meandered wildly, speaking in nondescript platitudes and evading both questions and reality. An intelligent person could easily see through his arguments. Speaking with a coworker later, I told my experience. While he did not disagree with me he said Obama clearly lost based on body language and visuals. Any other opinions. I guess we really are in the MTV era, beyond Kennedy beating Nixon based on pasty white teeth and boyish good looks. We are a ADD nation looking for the next American Idol, who will Randy Jackson say sang the 20 second Justin Timberlake clip better? I for one am a firm believer in content. And honesty. Obama won.

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2014/02/24/1279989/-No-one-wants-to-drive-out-to-Walmart-stores-anymore

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

No one wants to drive out to Walmart stores anymore

Indeed, look at the recent revenue trends for the retailer: "It appears increasingly uneconomic for the customer to drive 20 to 30 miles round trip to a supercenter to save a marginal amount on consumable goods—particularly when consumables, including food, are becoming more broadly distributed," [Credit Suisse analyst Michael] Exstein said. Unfortunately, the joke's ultimately on us, or at least our local governments. The big box development model -- build on cheap land on the edge of the community with taxpayers subsidizing your hard infrastructure/transportation costs, tilting the competitive landscape in your favor in the process -- is designed to be transitory. These buildings are, unlike the miles of public pipe and asphalt that serve them, quite disposable. You can't blame food stamp cuts for that kind of steady decline. Energy prices and the corresponding shift in our car culture are getting part of the blame:So now analysts are demanding that Walmart start shuttering those stores in favor of smaller-footprint in-town "neighborhood market" stores. As for those increasingly decrepit concrete monstrosities outside of town Lucky for Walmart, finding space for their "neighborhood markets" shouldn't be much of a problem. There is plenty of empty retail space in those downtowns they helped decimate in the first place.

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2005/10/19/157955/-Ed-Koch-and-Me

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

Ed Koch and Me

I disagree and am proud and content with my vote for George W. Bush because of his stand on international terrorism, and the failure of the Democratic Party and its candidate to convince the public, including me, that he comprehended the danger and importance of standing up and taking on Iraq. I am hardly a sheep following a bell. All the best. Ed Koch Me: Dear Mayor Koch, Thank you for your reply. As an American, I want to see Osama bin Laden brought to justice. President Bush doesn't seem to really give much thought to the man. Instead, he chose to lie us into an unnecessary war and create a terrorist breeding ground in Iraq. The Bush Administration, which you support, has created more terrorists (as was predicted), dug our country into a financial hole, and isolated us from our allies. Democrats like yourself, Lieberman and Miller have stuck your head in the sand (literally, I suppose), in order to support the Iraq invasion. Everyone (except a distinct minority) supports a strong stand on terrorism. Remember the 90% approval rating Bush enjoyed after 9/11? True Democrats, however, know that the way to win this war is by keeping the eye on bin Laden and al Qaeda and building a strong multilateral force. This is how Clinton/Albright/Clark did it in Yugoslavia and it worked. Bush ignored this successful approach in order to make sure Halliburton got paid and isolationist ideolouges in his base were pleased. His approach has failed miserably and the quagmire in Iraq only makes al Qaeda stronger. You may be "proud and content" of your support for the worst administration in modern American history. However, young Americans like myself will have to live with the consequences of your decision long after you are gone. If your conscience is clear, perhaps it is something you no longer possess. You have tarnished your legacy. And for that, sir, I just shake my head. We will build a new progressive legacy now that older progressives, like yourself, have faltered, abandoned their principles and given into their fear instead of their intellect and courage. Koch: Thanks for writing. We obviously disagree on a host of issues. All the best. Ed Koch