MY DAILY SOAPBOX

The Third Jihad-Full Length Documentary

2012-01-26T20:43:00.001-06:00

The Third Jihad from Revelación Cristiana on Vimeo.

The Third Jihad, the newest offering from the producers of the captivating documentary film, Obsession, explores the existence of radical Islam in America and the emerging risk that this “homegrown jihad” poses to national security, western liberties and the “American way of life.”

The film, which is narrated by devout Muslim American Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, opens with the following statement: “This is not a film about Islam. It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are radical. This film is about them.”

In 72 minutes, the film reveals that radical Islamists driven by a religiously motivated rejection of western values cultures and religion are engaging in a multifaceted strategy to overcome the western world. In contrast to the use of “violent jihad” and terror to instill fear in “non-believers,” The Third Jihad introduces the concept of “cultural jihad” as a means to infiltrate and undermine our society from within.

Related links:
The Third Jihad
RadicalIslam.org
Clarion Fund
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

'The Third Jihad' Producers Reply to New York Times Articles

Documentary recently pulled from NYPD counterterrorism training; Times articles filled with innuendo and inaccuracies

The New York Times has sharply criticized the New York Police Department for using the critically-acclaimed documentary The Third Jihad: Radical Islam's Vision for America in counterterrorism training.

The New York Times has published two news articles (first, second), as well as an editorial entitled "Hateful Film" in the past 48 hours.

In response, film producer Raphael Shore has issued the following statement:

"We regret that the film has been taken out of the counterterrorism training program of the NYPD. The New York Times stories are proof positive that the Clarion Fund's high-quality and impactful documentaries touch very sensitive nerves.

Those that have blasted the film are attempting to stifle an important debate about the internal state of the Muslim community in America, and whether politicized Islam and indoctrination pose tangible security threats.

We hope that individuals will acknowledge the inaccuracies presented by the New York Times, and the effects that organizations like CAIR have on the fine line between political correctness and honest debate.

We invite the general public to watch and judge the documentary for themselves. The Third Jihad is now being made available for free viewing online at www.thethirdjihad.com."

According to the New York Times, nearly 1500 officers, "from lieutenants to detectives to patrol officers" reportedly were shown the film during a period of between three months and a year.

The story of the film's usage by NYPD was first reported by the Village Voice a year earlier, and police stopped using the film when pressure was asserted by local Islamic organizations. Pressure continued until the New York Times propelled the year-old story to front-page news yesterday.

CAIR is taking credit for the "investigation" which led to the New York Times' coverage, with a press release demanding that the NYPD install Muslim-sensitive materials in their training curriculum to offset what they consider to be an 'Islamaphobic' film.

Innuendo

What CAIR and the New York Times failed to clearly address, is that The Third Jihad is narrated by a devout Muslim, who has a significant record of serving the United States of America, as a medical officer in the US Navy and as an attending physician to the US Congress.

The beginning of the film states in bold letters that, "This is not a film about Islam. It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are radical."
The film's message urges the Muslim community to look within itself to root out the indoctrination that affects a minority of Muslims.

The documentary is founded on credible evidence presented by the FBI of a "Manifesto" published by radicals calling for the implementation of extremist ideology-both violent and politicized-within the United States.

It is no surprise that CAIR does not like the content of the film. CAIR is singled out in the film for its direct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, open support for Hamas, and links to terror financing.

As a result of these designations, the FBI has formally ceased all ties with CAIR-as should the NYPD and New York Times.

The NYPD is well aware of the threats that emanate from Islamic radicals.

In the preface to a landmark 2007 NYPD Intelligence Division Report entitled "Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat," Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly writes, "New York City continues to be the one of the top targets of terrorists worldwide. Consequently, the NYPD places a priority on understanding what drives and defines the radicalization process."

The Third Jihad takes an in-depth look at the process of radicalization and indoctrination taking place on American soil.

It is clear that senior members of the NYPD saw value in the film, as did employees of the Federal Homeland Security department, who first gave the DVD of the film to the NYPD.

Inaccuracies

The Third Jihad features exclusive interviews with some of the nation's leading counterterrorism experts including former Director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, former Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey, former NYC Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, and NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly.

According to the New York Times, Paul J. Browne, the Police Department's chief spokesman said, "that filmmakers had lifted the [Kelly] clip from an old interview."

This is the first of several inaccuracies to appear in the New York Times' account.

The makers of The Third Jihad conducted a nearly 90-minute exclusive interview with Commissioner Kelly specifically for the film on March 19, 2007. Previously unreleased bonus clips of Kelly's interview are currently available at www.thethirdjihad.com.

Responding to a letter by film producer Raphael Shore, Browne then corrected the record in the New York Times follow-up article. "I recommended in February 2007 that Commissioner Kelly be interviewed," he said.

Browne recalled that the film's interviewer, "asked to speak to the commissioner for a cable film on 'foiled terrorist plots and the current threat matrix.'"

Several other inaccuracies appear in the article. For example, the New York Times notes that the film includes a doctored photo of the White House with an Islamic flag atop. But the photo is one of many pieces of documented footage from Islamist sources. Yet the New York Times implies that the filmmakers were the ones to manipulate the photo.

The New York Times also inaccurately quotes the film by stating: "'This is the true agenda of Islam in America,' a narrator intones." But the actual quote from the film is: "This document shows the true agenda of much of Muslim leadership here in America."

The article intentionally omits that this narrator is Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim.

The rest of the New York Times' coverage focuses on character assassination. While CAIR and others label the film Islamophobic, it is ironic that the film's detractors continuously point out that the film's producer has ties to Jewish organizations. The article inaccurately claims that Raphael Shore simultaneously works for Aish HaTorah.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg questioned the judgment of that those who permitted the usage of the film. However, Bloomberg's predecessor Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who is also interviewed in the film, has praised the documentary calling The Third Jihad, "a wake up call for America."

CONTACT:
press@clarionfund.org
646-308-1230 x213

Link

US Congressman Steve King: "Oil Will Be Sent to China if the Keystone Pipeline isn’t Built"

2012-01-18T21:32:00.000-06:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Brittany Lesser

January 18, 2012 Office: 202.226.2388

King: Oil Will Be Sent to China if the Keystone XL Pipeline isn’t Built

Washington, DC: Congressman Steve King (IA-05) released the following video statement in response to President Obama’s decision to deny the permit to build the job creating Keystone XL pipeline:
“If we block it, that oil will certainly go to China. It will enrich their economy,” said King. “It will starve ours and it’s clear that the President is pacifying his environmental extremist base and at the cost of American jobs and the vitality of America’s economy. This is a foolish decision on the part of the President. We’re going to have to do all we can in this Congress to reverse that decision, but I fear we’ll have to elect a new President before we can actually accomplish that task.”

U.S. Congressman Steve King

Iowa’s Fifth Congressional District

http://www.steveking.house.gov

http://www.facebook.com/SteveKingIA

http://www.twitter.com/SteveKingIA

http://www.youtube.com/SteveKingIA

Source: Tea Party Tribune

JFK Speech- The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, April 27, 1961

2012-01-15T14:48:00.003-06:00

Full transcript from the speech:

President John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City
April 27, 1961

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings.

We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.

That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

III

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press.

Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

Description: Audio recording of President John F. Kennedy’s address to the American Newspaper Publishers Association at a Bureau of Advertising dinner held at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City. In his speech President Kennedy addresses his discontent with the press’s news coverage of the Bay of Pigs incident, suggesting that there is a need for “far greater public information” and “far greater official secrecy.”

To listen to the full speech: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum

Kathleen Sebelius Destroyed Evidence to Protect Planned Parenthood in a Child Rape Case

2012-01-15T00:00:00.000-06:00

American Life League explains the miscarriage of justice in Kansas and calls for Kathleen Sebelius' resignation.

Kathleen Sebelius Destroyed Evidence to Protect Planned Parenthood in a Child Rape Case

A state Governor and her appointees obstruct an investigation into repeated coverups of child rape. When they find they can no longer stave off the inevitable, they destroy the evidence. Along the way they try to have the prosecutor disbarred. The Governor later becomes a member of the President’s Cabinet. These are the makings of a major scandal that should be plastered across the front page of every newspaper in America. Instead, hardly anyone has heard of it. Why?

The answer is twofold. First, the former Governor is current Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Second, her administration’s actions were undertaken in an effort to protect the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. One needn’t be Sherlock Holmes to figure out why the mainstream media have chosen to ignore the story.

It all started in Sebelius’s first year as Governor of Kansas, 2003, when state Attorney General Phill Kline, a pro-life Republican, began investigating whether abortion clinics in the Sunflower State were reporting child rapes as required by law. “Our evidence,” Kline recalled in an article at PlannedParenthoodCorruption.org, “had revealed that during a time when 166 abortions were performed on children in Kansas, Planned Parenthood had only reported one case of child molestation.”

That evidence was not easy to come by. The Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) and Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), both controlled by the staunchly pro-abortion Democrat Sebelius, fought tooth and nail to keep Kline from getting his hands on the relevant records. The courts eventually sided with Kline, and SRS and KDHE were forced to turn them over.

Among those records were reports on each abortion performed in the state, which abortion clinics were required to file. Kline kept copies of those reports and then, in 2004, subpoenaed Planned Parenthood for its own records. Like its allies in Topeka, Planned Parenthood delayed complying until it received a court order two years later.

Some of the reports provided by Planned Parenthood did not line up with the originals that KDHE had provided. Instead, “they had been filed with bogus language where legitimate medical reasons were supposed to have been supplied,” according to LifeNews.com. This led a judge in 2007 to find “probable cause to believe that Planned Parenthood committed 107 criminal acts, including 23 felonies,” one for each of the reports that had been altered, Kline wrote.

By that time Kline had been ousted as Attorney General after pro-abortion forces and their friends in the media targeted him for electoral defeat. By a stroke of luck, he was then appointed to the post his successor, Paul Morrison, had vacated — District Attorney for Johnson County, where Planned Parenthood’s offices just happened to reside. He was thus able to continue his investigation.

Kline left the copies of the documents originally provided by KDHE and Planned Parenthood with the judge. The judge then turned his copies over to incoming Attorney General Morrison, who in turn sued both the judge and Kline in an attempt to force them to turn all evidence over to Planned Parenthood. Morrison, said Kline, “lost both of these lawsuits but the litigation delayed my efforts for years more and resulted in the Sebelius-appointed Kansas Supreme Court ordering a secret trial and at one time, secretly silencing a witness to Planned Parenthood’s criminal conduct.”

Morrison was forced to resign amid scandal when his mistress, who still worked in the Johnson County District Attorney’s office, now reporting to Kline, publicly alleged that “Morrison was trying to use their relationship to interfere with the investigation of Planned Parenthood,” according to Kline. Sebelius then appointed Morrison’s successor, Stephen Six, who proceeded to obstruct the investigation further.

Finally, in 2011, a pre-trial hearing for the Planned Parenthood case got under way, with the current Johnson County District Attorney, Steve Howe, leading the prosecution. Then two bombshells were dropped.

First, KDHE had destroyed its original copies of the 23 abortion reports in question in 2005, once it became clear that it would have to present them in court. “Calling it a ‘routine’ document destruction,” observed Kline, “the Sebelius administration shredded documents it knew served as key evidence in a criminal investigation against a Sebelius ally.”

The second bombshell was that KDHE wasn’t the only Sebelius administration agency to destroy evidence. In 2009, the Attorney General’s office, under the leadership of Six, also shredded documents related to the investigation that had been provided to the office during Kline’s tenure. “The Six Attorney General’s office destroyed documents produced pursuant to a criminal subpoena which it knew was evidence in a criminal prosecution filed in October of 2007,” Kline stated. “Not only this, Six knew I was trying to use those documents in the criminal case.”

Because of the destruction of evidence, Howe has asked the court to dismiss the felony charges against Planned Parenthood.
Read more: The New American

The Real Legacy of Margaret Thatcher, Britain's Iron Lady

2012-01-14T23:29:00.001-06:00

The Real Legacy of Margaret Thatcher, Britain's Iron Lady

http://www.heritage.org |
As moveigoers head to theaters this weekend, many will want to compare the person they saw on screen to the real woman. As we explained this week, there is no resource better than the Iron Lady’s own words. Our new video attempts to shine a spotlight on her important legacy—one that continues to inspire.

Like President Ronald Reagan, her political soulmate, she came to power at a desperate time in her country’s history, when real leadership and bold ideas were most needed. And by applying conservative principles to the challenges she faced, she was able to achieve real and lasting success. Then, as today, she faced an extraordinary set of challenges and a chorus of voices saying her country’s best days were behind it. Thatcher’s successes are a comforting reminder of the power of a bold, conservative vision at work.

Eulogy to Reagan by Thatcher

Eulogy to President Ronald Reagan delivered (or rather, pre-recorded and shown) by the former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher at his state funeral in Washington.

Related Links:
Margaret Thatcher Center For Freedom

US Rep. Johnson Pitches Plan For Part-Time Congress

2012-01-14T22:51:00.003-06:00

On January 13th Congressman Johnson announced his major congressional reform initiative: The Citizen Legislator Act. This bill could save up to $2 billion a year by cutting the days representatives spend in session, cutting their salaries in half, cutting their office budgets in half and allowing them to work jobs outside of public office.

For more information on this legislation visit: http://timjohnson.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=29&parentid=7&section...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johnson pitches plan for part-time Congress

By: Ryan Denham |

BLOOMINGTON – One Central Illinois lawmaker wants Congress to do less – a lot less.

U.S. Rep. Tim Johnson, R-Urbana, is introducing a bill called the Citizen Legislators Act, which would make being a member of Congress a part-time job instead of a full-time position. He said a less demanding legislative schedule – and the ability to have a job outside Congress – would bring in new blood.

The five-term incumbent said the current crop of lawmakers in Congress is out of touch with “Main Street USA.”

“You can get farmers, you can get teachers, you can get laborers, you can get lawyers, you can get a variety of people,” Johnson told WJBC’s Beth Whisman on Friday. “Now, the ‘mix,’ so to speak, is very limited.”

Johnson’s bill would:

Limit days in session to five per month, or 60 business days per session.
Halves the salary of representatives and senators.
Permit members to have jobs outside of Congress, so long as they don’t derive their income as a result of the “privilege of their office,” such as speaking tours.
Cuts member office allowances, committee and leadership budgets in half
Cuts member salaries an additional 10 percent for every five business days Congress exceeds 60 business days in session.

Johnson said his bill could save up to $2 billion a year.

“You force efficiency. You force people to get work done in a compact period of time, and if they don’t there’s a heavy penalty to be paid – every five days you go over the 60, members get their salaries cut 10 percent.”

Johnson conceded that the chances of his bill passing are slim, but he said he’d be pleased to see it raise the issue in a serious way.

One of the Democrats hoping to run against Johnson in November said Johnson was “playing political games” instead of focusing on economic issues “important to voters in Central Illinois.”

“Congressman Johnson is part of the problem in Washington, and it’s clear he’ll do to anything to stay in Congress,” Greene County State’s Attorney Matt Goetten said in a statement. “When Congressman Tim Johnson first ran for Congress more than ten years ago, he supported term limits. Now Congressman Johnson is trying to hide his failed record of supporting job-killing trade agreements and ending Medicare as we know it by introducing bogus reform initiatives so he can get re-elected. That’s exactly why Congress is such a mess. We need actual solutions to get people back to work.”

Goetten will run against fellow Democrat Dr. David Gill in the March 20 primary.

Johnson’s “new bill cuts pay and work time for Congress in half,” a post on Gill’s Twitter account (@davidgill2012) said. “Will he cut his pay and staff by half NOW to lead — or is it another stunt?”

For his interview with WJBC go here

THE AMERICAN AWAKENING-STOPPING AGENDA 21

2012-01-08T11:30:00.002-06:00

Rosa Koire, of Democrats Against Agenda 21, has made it her mission to speak out against Agenda 21. While this is a long video, it is worth watching.

SOUNDS LIKE SCIENCE FICTION...OR SOME CONSPIRACY THEORY...BUT IT ISN'T.
Have you wondered where these terms 'sustainability' and 'smart growth' and 'high density urban mixed use development' came from?

Doesn't it seem like about 10 years ago you'd never heard of them and now everything seems to include these concepts? Is that just a coincidence? That every town and county and state and nation in the world would be changing their land use/planning codes and government policies to align themselves with...what?

Click here for more: http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/index.html

Who are we?

We are engaged in educating ourselves, our peers, and our country about UN Agenda 21, ICLEI, Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, Form-Based Zoning, Green Energy Mandates, Carbon Offsets, Cap and Trade, Redevelopment and other programs that restrict our land rights and civil rights.

This vitally important information transcends party lines and illuminates much of what we have witnessed over the past two decades.

This is not a left or right issue. It's an American issue. The information on these sites will help you to identify what is happening in your town and to stop it.

http://www.PostSustainabilityInstitute.org
http://www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com
http://www.SantaRosaNeighborhoodCoalition.com
Need a DVD, submit a request at: http://teapartymedia.net/listen_live_/disk_request_.htm
We the People Radio interview: http://teapartymedia.net/20111218/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

REDEVELOPMENT-THE UNKNOWN GOVERNMENT

There is an unknown government taking over our country city by city.

Unlike new counties, cities and school districts, it can be created without a vote of the citizens affected.

Unlike other governments, it can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval. Unlike other governments, it may use the power of eminent domain to benefit private interests.

This unknown government provides no public services. It does not educate our children, maintain our streets, protect us from crime, nor stock our libraries.

It claims to eliminate blight and promote economic development, yet there is no evidence it has done so in the half century since it was created.

Indeed, it has become a rapidly growing drain on this country's public resources, amassing enormous power with little public awareness or oversight.

This unknown government is Redevelopment.

It is time Americans knew more about it.

(This report was specifically put together for Californians but is relevant to every state. This AGENDA 21 farce has infested every state and is rapidly taking over our cities)

Redevelopment-The Unknown Government-Agenda 21

Hacker Group Anonymous: “We Are The 99%” And We Find Obama Guilty Of “Domestic Terrorism”

2012-01-07T11:20:00.000-06:00

H/T Pat Dollard

DOCTORS GOING BROKE

2012-01-07T08:44:00.000-06:00

"The real threat to the Hispanic community is the Democrat party with their liberal, entitlement-welfare ideas” -E.J. Otero (Video-Congressional Candidate)

2012-01-06T20:49:00.002-06:00

In a two-part interview by Javier Manjarres, Congressional candidate Retired Air Force Colonel Evelio ‘EJ’ Otero, from Miami, discusses how he communicates his message to the growing Hispanic community- by daring to state the dirty truth about illegal immigration.

Otero is running against Democrat Congresswoman Kathy Castor, who has just been named as one of the members of congress who have missed the most votes with 67.

PART 1

PART 2

"The real threat to the Hispanic community is the Democrat party with their liberal, entitlement-welfare ideas” -E.J. Otero

The conservative movement is fortunate to count amongst its ranks several principled individuals who can effectively and unapologetically articulate conservatism and take the fight to liberal progressives- Congressman Allen West comes immediately to mind. And for conservatives who are looking for reinforcements who will get Congressman West’s back in Congress, it looks like we’ve found yet another one prepared to do so.

Retired Air Force Colonel Evelio ‘EJ’ Otero is from Miami, and he’s not kidding around- he’s a down the line conservative Republican of Cuban descent. I sat down with Otero for an interview where I was able to get a better grasp of his views and his newly announced candidacy for U.S. Congress.

Read More: The Shark Tank part 1

The Shark Tank part 2

GBTV: Glenn analyzes Ron Paul's record

2012-01-06T16:08:00.001-06:00

Proof Obama Wanted NDAA 1031 Citizen Indefinite Detention To Include American Citzens Law in a Few Days

2012-01-04T22:43:00.002-06:00

NDAA Bill
Nation Defense Authorization Act : Indefinite Detention of Americans without a charge or trial:

Proof Obama Administration Demanded Language In The Bill That Allows For The Detention Of American Citizens:

Obama Signs National Defense Authorization Act into Law

President Barack Obama signed a law on New Year's Eve granting himself absolute power to indefinitely detain American citizens suspected (by him) of being "belligerents." He promises he won't use it, however.
On December 31, 2011, with the President's signing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the writ of habeas corpus — a civil right so fundamental to Anglo-American common law history that it predates the Magna Carta — is voidable upon the command of the President of the United States. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is also revocable at his will.

The United States, as Senator Lindsey Graham declared during floor debate in the Senate, is now a theatre in the War on Terror and Americans "can be detained indefinitely ... and when you say to the interrogator, 'I want my lawyer,' the interrogator will say, 'You don't have a right to a lawyer because you're a military threat.'"

Don't worry, though. Although the President now wields this enormous power, he adamantly denies that he will ever "authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens." That guarantee is all that stands between American citizens and life in prison on arbitrary charges of conspiring to commit or committing acts belligerent to the homeland.

The President continued by explaining that to indefinitely detain American citizens without a trial on the charges laid against them "would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."

Ironically, the signing statement in which President Obama gave these assurances is itself violative of the Constitution, the separation of powers established therein, and only demonstrates his proclivity for ignoring constitutional restraints on the exercise of power once those powers have been placed (albeit illegally) by a complicit Congress at his disposal.

Once development of it begins in the body politic, the muscle of tyranny never atrophies.

Supporters of the law (including President Obama) point to the "undeniable" success achieved against "suspected terrorists." Although President Obama claims that the section of the NDAA (1021) authorizing the President to detain these suspects "breaks no new ground and is unnecessary," the President's interpretation of just who inhabits the universe of likely suspects (as explained in the signing statement appended to the NDAA) includes "al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and adherents...."

Since the beginning of hostilities in the wake of 9/11, the federal government has often had problems proving membership in al-Qaeda of those arrested as "enemy combatants" in the War on Terror, so imagine the difficulty they would face in presenting evidence of affiliation or adherence to that shadowy, ill-defined organization.

The danger of the vagueness of crucial terms of the NDAA was addressed by current Republican presidential contender Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) during a phone conference with supporters in Iowa:

The dangers in the NDAA are its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the US government without trial. It is now no longer limited to members of al Qaeda or the Taliban, but anyone accused of “substantially supporting” such groups or “associated forces.” How closely associated? And what constitutes "substantial" support? What if it was discovered that someone who committed a terrorist act was once involved with a charity? Or supported a political candidate? Are all donors of that charity or supporters of that candidate now suspect, and subject to indefinite detainment? Is that charity now an associated force?

The Bill of Rights has no exemption for "really bad people" or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system; it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the Bill of Rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire Unites States is a battlefield in the War on Terror. This is a very dangerous development indeed. Beware.

Fortunately for the President, the NDAA absolves him of the requirement of gathering and presenting to an impartial judge evidence probative of such evil associations. The mere suspicion of such suffices as a justification for the indefinite imprisonment of those so suspected.

As if the foregoing roster of Stalinist-style authoritarianism isn't an imposing enough threat to freedom, there is an additional aspect of the new law that places the civil liberties of Americans in greater peril.

The NDAA places the American military at the disposal of the President for the apprehension, arrest, and detention of those suspected of posing a danger to the homeland (whether inside or outside the borders of the United States and whether the suspect be a citizen or foreigner). The endowment of such a power to the President by the Congress is nothing less than a de facto legislative repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, the law forbidding the use of the military in domestic law enforcement.

Again, the aforementioned Senator Lindsey Graham has no qualms shredding that parchment protection from tyranny, either. Said Graham: "I don't believe fighting al Qaeda is a law enforcement function. I believe our military should be deeply involved in fighting these guys at home and abroad."

The undeniable unconstitutionality of the National Defense Authorization Act and its violation of the Posse Comitatus Act is likely to result in the necessity of states nullifying those sections of the law that exceed the enumerated powers of Congress. This remedy would be applied by the legislatures of the states in an effort to protect its citizens from arrest and extradition by armed members of the federal armed forces. This effort to resist unfettered federal authority would rival the intensity of the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s — a confrontation that culminated in the Civil War and the death of at least 600,000 Americans.

While the frightening abolition of civil liberties contained in the NDAA could not have been codified were it not for the signature of President Obama, the complicity of the Congress in easing our Republic's "slip into tyranny" should not be overlooked.

Sixty-eight percent of the House of Representatives voted for this measure, for example. Perhaps in the elections of 2012 those lawmakers who voted in favor of the measure will be held accountable by their constituents for such an inexplicable violation of the congressional oath of office and its requirement that members protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Other sections of the 500-plus-page, $662-billion law authorizes the continued expenditure of money on the perpetuation of two unconstitutional foreign conflicts (Iraq and Afghanistan), as well as greasing the skids for the deployment of the American military into Iran if economic sanctions fail to persuade Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to see things our way.

While the NDAA's effect on the Constitution is all but ignored by the administration and Congress, its effect on oil prices is taken very seriously. Under applicable provisions of the new law, President Obama may punish international firms which buy oil from Iran. President Obama has an out, however, if he believes that the imposition of such penalties is driving up the price of crude.

The New York Times quotes an unnamed administration official who explains the importance of vigilantly protecting the stability of the volatile oil market: "We have to do it in a timely way and phased way to avoid repercussions to the oil market, and make sure the revenues to Iran are reduced."

Finally, President Obama signed the NDAA, and the depth of the impact of this law on the freedom of Americans and the perpetuation of our Constitution cannot be measured. Promises to restrain oneself from abusing power are unreliable. As Thomas Jefferson once warned:

Free government is founded in jealousy, not confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind those we are obliged to trust with power.... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Generals Confront Obama's NDAA, say it's a 'victory for bin Laden'

NDAA would 'expand the battlefield to include United States and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise'

In last moment opposition to the nation's leaders' greatest assault on basic huan rights, the National Defense Authorization bill that President Barack Obama insisted include Americans on U.S. soil for military arrest without charge and indefinite detention, retired military leaders Tuesday resorted to publicly confronting the president in the New York Times in their continued speaking out against provisions in the bill as released Monday night from the congressional conference committee.

"In his inaugural address, President Obama called on us to 'reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.' We agree," stated the retired military leaders in their New York Times piece Tuesday.

"Now, to protect both, he must veto the National Defense Authorization Act that Congress is expected to pass this week."

President Obama could sign the bill enacting martial law as early as Wednesday.
Retired four-star Marine generals Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar have warned against provisions in the bill that would serious impact U.S. counterterrorism policy in today’s New York Times.

Congresspersons undermine American ideals in the name of 'terrorism'

In their piece “Guantanamo Forever?” the former military leaders urged President Obama to veto the bill that contains a provision that "would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil.”

Krulak and Hoar argue that if this bill becomes a law, “due process would be a thing of the past."

"Some claim that this provision would merely codify existing practice. Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States…”

In a written statement released Tuesday, the military leaders say that the bill "also threatens to foist additional duties on an already stressed U.S. military."

Hoar and Krulak warn that forcing the military to assume responsibilities now handled by law enforcement, “would violate not only the spirit of the post-Reconstruction act limiting the use of the armed forces for domestic law enforcement, but also our trust with service members, who enlist believing that they will never be asked to turn their weapons on fellow Americans.”

Hoar and Krulak are part of a group of retired military leaders who have been outspoken on issues of detention of terrorist suspects, including Guantanamo Bay, and interrogation techniques.

"Having served various administrations, we know that politicians of both parties love this country and want to keep it safe," they wrote.

Referring to the 60 senators who voted in favor of the bill, what rights defenders say is treason for which each of them should be impeached, Hoar and Krulak stated that "right now, some in Congress are all too willing to undermine our ideals in the name of fighting terrorism.

"They should remember that American ideals are assets, not liabilities."

Fox News Shows The True And Dangerous Side Of OWS

2012-01-04T21:52:00.000-06:00

OBAMA'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL APPOINTMENTS TODAY TO BE CHALLENGED IN COURT

2012-01-04T21:02:00.005-06:00

Obama to Make Controversial Recess Appointment

Obama's Cordray Appointment Mocks the Constitution

In 2008 candidate Sen. Barack Obama famously said: “This is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he is going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We are not going to use signing statements as a way of doing and end run around Congress.”

Now, we find that not only was he kidding about signing statements – he recently used one to ignore about 20 provisions of the omnibus spending bill – but Obama also believes he can decide for himself that the Senate is in recess when it is not, overturn at least a hundred years of precedent, and bypass the Constitution’s advice and consent requirement.

Moreover, the president now considers it a political virtue that he is doing precisely what he criticized George Bush for doing: “make laws as he is going along.” Obama now says: “I refuse to take 'No' for an answer… when Congress refuses to act in a way that hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.”

If he were acting within the confines of the law and the Constitution, the argument might make sense. But Obama has now adopted a theory of executive power so expansive that a reporter at a recent press conference understandably asked whether the president believes we have a virtual monarchy, a president of unlimited powers subject only to periodic elections but not to the rule of law.

According to a 1993 brief from the Clinton Justice Department, Congress must remain adjourned for at least three days before the adjournment constitutes a “recess” for the purposes the recess appointment power.

The origin of this three day period is Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, which states: “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days.”

In other words, the president can only recess appoint when the Senate has adjourned for more than three days, and the Senate cannot adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the House. Speaker John Boehner has properly withheld that consent to prevent Obama from installing radical appointees into key positions.

There is recent precedent for this action and for its legitimacy. In fact, then-Obama Solicitor General Elena Kagan wrote to the Supreme Court on April 26, 2010: “Although a President may fill such vacancies through the use of his recess appointment power … the Senate may act to foreclose this option by declining to recess for more than two or three days at a time over a lengthy period. For example, the Senate did not recess intrasession for more than three days at a time for over a year beginning in late 2007.”

Obama’s attempt to “recess appoint” Richard Cordray while the Senate is in pro forma session is especially galling in light of the history of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the broad powers that Cordray – if Obama’s sleight of hand is permitted by the courts – will wield over the United States economy.

The CFPB has the power to interfere with every consumer financial transaction in the economy. It is housed in the Federal Reserve and funded out of Fed operations, not congressional appropriations, avoiding effective congressional oversight.

All power is vested in one individual – now, presumably Cordray – with no board or commission. None of this was part of Elizabeth Warren’s original design, which included a five-member commission that was funded and overseen by Congress. Senate Republicans have correctly called for reforms to make the new agency accountable before confirming a nominee and allowing it to begin writing rules that could have a major negative impact on the economy.

Obama doesn’t care. He’s making is up as he goes along. What a difference four years makes.

Phil Kerpenis vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity and author of Democracy Denied: How Obama is Ignoring You and Bypassing Congress to Radically Transform America – and How to Stop Him.
SOURCE: FOX NEWS

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama Administration Tests Constitutional Power After Controversial Appointment

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce may sue the Obama administration over President Obama's controversial appointment of Richard Cordray to head a controversial consumer financial board, officials from the business group told Fox News on Wednesday after an unprecedented display of executive power that is sure to poison already-strained relations with the GOP.

Chamber spokeswoman Blair Latoff and colleague Bryan Goettel both told Fox News that their understanding is that "we are not ruling it out." However, they said they still "need to understand the specifics of the appointment to determine if a legal challenge is even possible."

The chamber was early in its criticism of the president's move Wednesday to appoint Cordray to chair the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in a move that invites legal challenge but which administration officials say is perfectly within the president's authority to do.

"To say we are disappointed in the move by the president today would be a gross understatement," Chamber President Tom Donohue said in statement. "This controversial appointment is unprecedented, constitutionally questionable, and puts the authority of the director and the validity of the bureau’s work in legal jeopardy. What's more, it ignores repeated calls to reform the bureau by restoring basic checks and balances."

Others are also questioning the validity of the president's move. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who could become the majority leader in 2012, released an ominous statement Wednesday, saying the appointment "lands this nominee in uncertain legal territory, threatens the confirmation process and fundamentally endangers the Congress' role in providing a check on the excesses of the executive branch."

One senior GOP aide told Fox News to expect a lawsuit from an outside group that would fall under CFPB's regulatory jurisdiction since Congress itself would lack the authority to sue.

"It's our understanding that someone affected by the CFPB would have standing here, not the House," another aide told Fox Business Network. "So some business that gets clobbered by the agency could sue."

The GOP aide added that aside from an almost immediate challenge, even if Cordray moves into the post, he will face a wall of opposition at every turn.

Cordray "will get absolutely nothing done. Also, funding (for the CFPB) will be in some peril," the aide said.

The White House might not mind a fight during a presidential campaign year, as Obama looks to frame the battle as one against obstructionist congressional Republicans who are against middle-class Americans.

"I nominated Richard for this job last summer, so you may be wondering why am I appointing him today," Obama told supporters in Ohio, where Cordray appeared with him in Shaker Heights. "It would be a good question. ... The only reason Republicans in the Senate have blocked Richard is because they don't agree with the law that set up a consumer watchdog in the first place. They want to weaken the law. They want to water it down."

Republicans made clear both during Cordray's nomination and on Wednesday that they have no problem with Cordray personally, but want changes in the massive new watchdog agency, including a budget and nominee subject to congressional oversight and other reforms in its wide-ranging rule-making authority.

"The president should stop allowing his Chicago political campaign to make his Washington policy decisions," Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services and Bailouts of Public and Private Programs, said Wednesday in a statement in which he criticized Obama's claims of transparency in his administration. McHenry also invited Cordray to appear on Jan. 24 before his committee to answer questions about how he would implement policies as head of CFPB.

"There are legitimate policy concerns about the structure of the CFPB. They can be reconciled, but the president refuses to even have the conversation," he said.

Cordray, who was successfully filibustered by Republicans last year, will remain in the job until Jan. 3, 2014, unless confirmed by the Senate sooner, an unlikely event given the current partisan move by the White House.

While controversial, nowhere in the Constitution is a recess expressly defined, though the document does give the chief executive the "power to fill up vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate."

As a result, a loose understanding has arisen over the years as to what constitutes a recess.

Most, including Obama's own acting solicitor general, appear to hold to a three-day minimum for a recess, arising from the congressional adjournment clause in the Constitution which states that no chamber may break for longer than three days without the approval of the other chamber.

In a 2010 Supreme Court case, "New Process Steel vs. National Labor Relations Board," acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal referenced the three-day minimum, during which no recess appointment could be made and cited a Department of Justice brief issued in 1993 by Attorney General Janet Reno.

But the document is vague.

In the brief, which was used to argue against a controversial recess appointment by former President George H.W. Bush, Reno called the three-day recess a "requirement." But it went on to say "the Constitution provides no basis for limiting the recess to a specific number of days."

That does not negate the understanding that appears to have arisen in modern times among members of Congress, Democrat and Republican alike. Democrats in 2008 held the Senate in "pro forma" session to block recess appointments by President George W. Bush. At the time, Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, while serving in the Senate, strenuously argued against such an exercise of presidential power.

When Bush appointed John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations, then-Sen. Obama said the nominee was, as a result of the temporary position, "damaged goods." Noting the Senate had rejected the nominee -- though unlike Cordray, Bolton faced bipartisan opposition -- the senator said the U.S. would have "less credibility" at the world body.

At a Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Biden said, "No president is entitled to the appointment of anyone he nominates," adding, "That's why they wrote the Constitution the way they did. It says 'advice and consent.'"

According to a Congressional Research Service report, since the administration of President Ronald Reagan, no recess appointment has been bestowed upon a nominee during a recess that was shorter than 10 days.

Nonetheless, a senior administration official told Fox News that the White House is on solid ground with the maneuver.

Thus, it is the interpretation of the White House that the Senate is in fact "in recess" and the administration can make appointments.

Despite the predicted fight over the CFPB nominee, one congressional GOP source predicted the fight will have no effect. The aide sited polls that, according to the source, show Americans disinterested in the watchdog agency, with few knowing about Cordray.

"It's just not a 'top of mind' issue. It's nowhere on the radar of anyone," the aide said.
Fox News' Chad Pergram contributed to this report.

SOURCE: FOX NEWS

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Recess Appointments by the President: What Our Constitution Really Says

If the Senate rejects any nomination, the President may not circumvent that rejection by unconstitutional gimmicks such as those proposed by Arkush~

Much misinformation about The Constitution is put out by those who seek to circumvent its clear provisions. In Peter Schroeder’s recent article in The Hill, he reports that David Arkush, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division, makes two arguments which Arkush claims permit the President to make a “recess” appointment of someone (Richard Cordray) whose nomination has already been blocked by the Senate.

Arkush reportedly claims that Art. 2, Sec.3, U.S. Constitution, allows the President to force the House and Senate to adjourn; and then, pursuant to Art. II, Sec. 2, last clause, he would be permitted to make a “recess” appointment of his rejected nominee. ¹

Arkush’s next claim is this: The 20^th Amendment states that Congress shall assemble at least once a year, with each session beginning on Jan. 3. Arkush says that in order to be able to start a session on Jan 3; Congress would have to have stopped a previous session—and between the stopping of the old and the starting of the new, the President may slip in there and make a “recess” appointment of his rejected nominee!

Rubbish.

So! Let us see how easy it is to look things up in Our Constitution. You do not have to settle for the rubbish spewed by others and uncritically reported by journalists. You can find out for yourself what Our Constitution really says.
Look It Up In Our Constitution!
FIRST: What does Our Constitution say about presidential “appointments”? Article II, Sec. 2, cl. 2, says:
...he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law; but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone…[emphasis added]
Do you see? The constitutional scheme is that the President nominates—the Senate confirms or rejects the President’s nomination. This is the “check” which Our Constitution imposes on the President’s nominations. The purpose is to protect us from the loons, incompetents, or toadies whom various presidents have, from time to time, nominated.

NOW let us see what Our Constitution says about recess appointments. Article II, Sec. 2, last clause, says:
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. [emphasis added]
Do you see? The Vacancy must have happened at a time when the Senate was already in Recess!

So! The President may not properly circumvent the Senate’s constitutionally granted power to reject his nominations by means of cheap gimmicks such as forcing the Congress to adjourn, or by waiting until Congress is in recess, to “recess appoint” someone whom the Senate has already refused to approve!

Check It Out In The Federalist Papers!

The Federalist Papers are authoritative on the genuine meaning of Our Constitution, ² so you always want to see what they say about any clause in Our Constitution. Here is an online edition of The Federalist Papers with a searchable text. If you type in “recess”, you will get hits for The Federalist Papers which use that term.

Throughout Federalist No. 76, Alexander Hamilton explains the reasons for the constitutional provision requiring nominations by the President to be submitted to the Senate for their approval or disapproval. In the last 3 paras, Hamilton points out that the Constitution “requires” the cooperation of the Senate in appointments in order to “check” the President and “to prevent the appointment of unfit characters”; and that “the necessity of its [the Senate’s] co-operation, in the business of appointments, will be a considerable and salutary restraint upon the conduct of that magistrate [the President].”

Now, let us see what The Federalist Papers say about “recess” appointments. In Federalist No. 67 (next to last para) Hamilton is very clear that Article II, Sec. 2, last clause, means what it says:
...The ordinary power of appointment is confined to the President and Senate JOINTLY, and can therefore only be exercised during the session of the Senate; but as it would have been improper to oblige this body to be continually in session for the appointment of officers and as vacancies might happen IN THEIR RECESS, which it might be necessary for the public service to fill without delay, the succeeding clause is evidently intended to authorize the President, SINGLY, to make temporary appointments “during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.”... [caps are Hamilton’s]
Do you see? Article II, Sec. 2, last clause, means exactly what it says. Before this clause even kicks in, the vacancy must have happened while the Senate was in “recess”.

So! The Constitution requires the President to submit his nominations to the Senate for their approval. A President who disbands Congress so that he can circumvent the constitutional provisions which grant to the Senate the power to reject the President’s nominations, is a usurper & a tyrant who should be promptly impeached and removed from office. ³

If the Senate rejects any nomination, the President may not circumvent that rejection by unconstitutional gimmicks such as those proposed by Arkush.

If people wish to show how clever, creative, or original they are, then they should write a novel. When applying Our Constitution, we must display only Obedience.

Now you know how to look things up in Our Constitution and check it out in The Federalist Papers. Political consultants, journalists, TV pundits, talk show hosts, candidates for office, people in Congress, in the Executive Branch, and sitting on Federal Benches don’t know how to do this. So you must do it and spread the Word if we are to restore our Constitutional Republic. PH
Endnotes:
¹ Article II, Sec. 3 authorizes the President to adjourn Congress only when there is a “Disagreement” between the Houses “with Respect to the Time of Adjournment”. He is not permitted to adjourn Congress so that he may then circumvent the constitutional provisions which grant to the Senate the Power to reject the President’s nominees!

² See the Minutes of March 4, 1825 of the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia (Thomas Jefferson & James Madison were present) where they voted to make The Federalist Papers one of the texts books for the Law School. They said:
...on the distinctive principles of the government of our own state, and of that of the US. the best guides are to be found in 1. the Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental act of union of these states. 2. the book known by the title of `The Federalist’, being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the US. on questions as to its genuine meaning.... (page 83) [emphasis added]

³ On impeaching the President for usurpations of power—i.e., acting outside the few enumerated powers granted to the President by Our Constitution—see Federalist No. 66 (2^nd para) & Federalist No. 77 (last para.) PH

SOURCE: CANADA FREE PRESS

RELATED LINKS:
Richard Cordray appointment 'turns lights on' at consumer bureau
Obama DOJ Undercuts President’s ‘Recess’ Appointment Stunt
Obama's Recess Appointments Are UnConstitutional And An Abuse of Power

Watch, Organize, Pray and Vote November 2012 (GBTV VERSION)

2011-12-31T22:02:00.000-06:00

Not long ago the tea party was accused of being violent, racist, & wanting to overthrow the US govt despite no video evidence.

Now the same accusers are asking you to not believe your own eyes w/OWS. They want to compare the OWS movement, which are ANTI-AMERICAN, ANTI-ISRAEL, ANTI-CAPITALISM and, for the most part, Communists, Socialists, Anarchists and Marxists with the PATRIOTIC, AMERICA LOVING, FREE ENTERPRISE LOVING, SMALL GOVERNMENT YEARNING, PRO-ISRAEL TEA PARTY.

As someone who stood with Glenn Beck and several hundred thousand other patriots in Washington, DC on 8/28/10, I tell you the main stream media is corrupt, treasonous & will eventually destroy itself.

Please do your part and show up and vote in 2012. Our countries very existence, as we know it, depends on you! We must get the Democrats out of power in the Senate and the White House and keep our majority in the House in order to try to start the process of reversing the damage these traitors in power have done to this great country.

The Obama Christmas Carol

2011-12-20T23:08:00.000-06:00

The 12 Days of Obama's Presidency: the trashing of the Constitution and destruction of Liberty in America

HAS FREEDOM DIED?

2011-12-20T01:51:00.001-06:00

Please check out this list from the article below:

Ladies and gentlemen, America is now a Marxist police state with a tin pot dictator in charge.

1) Re: “The National Defense Authorization Act FY2012-The White House opposed the legislation until, as Senator Carl Levin told lawmakers, “the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section’. Let me run that by you again. The administration actually asked that language be removed which would exempt U.S citizens and lawful residents from this legislation.

2) According to the goarmy.com website, the Army is now actively recruiting for MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) 31E, otherwise known as an Internment/Resettlement Specialist.

3) 800 detainment camps have been built covertly all over the United States, allegedly capable of holding two million people.

4) The federal government is now using drones in America.

5) The federal government is actively seeking to curtail our second amendment gun rights, by any means possible.

6) The authority will soon be in place whereby the president can declare martial law, and can detain anyone indefinitely.

7) U.N troops, who have no loyalty to or sentiment towards American citizens have been training for mass crisis situations on U.S. soil.

8) The administration has a website whereby people can be “turned in” by anyone for saying anything critical of the administration.

9) The Department of Homeland Security has a “target list” already in place, as outlined in their infamous report.......

(Dec. 16, 2011) — Two things happened recently that got little or no attention in the 24-hour news cycle, and for good reason. These things might seem at first glance to be totally unrelated, but when you look at them in the larger scheme of things they could be absolutely chilling. The focus of my recent op-ed’s has been an attempt to assemble a puzzle or mosaic, and these last two pieces bring the picture into startling clarity.

Just over a month ago Obama was threatening to veto legislation called “The National Defense Authorization Act FY2012 over wording in Section 1032 which effectively gives “authorities” the right to detain and torture American citizens indefinitely, just like those Al Qaeda members in Guantanamo. As Congressman Ron Paul warns,” this should be the biggest news going right now“, and he said the legislation would allow for “literally legalizing martial law“. Paul further warns that,” This step where they can literally detain American citizens and put them away without trial is arrogant, bold and dangerous”.

The White House opposed the legislation until, as Senator Carl Levin told lawmakers, “the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section’.

Let me run that by you again. The administration actually asked that language be removed which would exempt U.S citizens and lawful residents from this legislation. Are you kidding me? The administration issued a statement on November 17, saying that the president would veto the bill as it would challenge “the president’s critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation”. The de facto president basically demanded authority to indefinitely detain American citizens and the Congress complied!

Now for the second mosaic piece. According to the goarmy.com website, the Army is now actively recruiting for MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) 31E, otherwise known as an Internment/Resettlement Specialist. Hmm. Where have I heard that term resettlement before? Oh, that’s right, that’s what the NAZI’s told the Jews during WW2 to keep them complacent. The Jews were told not to worry, that they were just going to be “resettled”. We saw how that worked out. The Internment/ Resettlement Specialist is not only tasked with handling the custody and control of individuals designated as Enemy Prisoners of War, or EPW’s, but also Civilian Internees, or CI’s. This is a classic euphemism. You are not an American citizen prisoner, you are a civilian internee in a civilian internee camp. You may remember that the term “civilian internee” was used to refer to Americans of Japanese descent during WW2. That should put to rest any of those “it can’t happen here” sentiments you may be having.

Read More: The Post & Email

If that doesn't worry you at all....then how about this:

Newsmax‘s Ronald Kessler On White House Construction: They’re Building A Top Secret Underground Bunker

by Alex Alvarez | 4:59 pm, November 30th, 2011

A new construction project underway at the White House has some wondering what, exactly, is going on over at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. While the official word is that America’s most famous address is having new water pipes and other such utilities installed or upgraded, Newsmax chief Washington correspondent Ronald Kessler says that just isn’t the case.

Kessler, author of In the President’s Secret Service: Behind the Scenes with Agents in the Line of Fire and the Presidents They Protect, appeared on Fox News this afternoon to share that, actually, the White House is building a “top secret” underground bunker so that government may continue to function “in the event of an attack, be it nuclear, biological, or radiological.”

But if the project is indeed so top secret, why is it being built so openly and in plain sight?

Well, you know, they do have to excavate dirt; they can’t hide that. But what they’re doing is they’re putting out this cover story that it’s just moving utilities around and that sort of thing. They had the same cover story when they did a similar bunker at the Vice President’s residence, the Naval Observatory. They said it was just utilities. In fact, it was a top secret bunker to shield the Vice President in the event of a major attack.

Remember, Biden let the secret out at a Gridiron dinner, and then he tried to cover it up by saying, no, he was talking about something else.

To clarify that last point: At the 2009 Gridiron Club dinner, Biden described a room in his residence that was located “behind a massive steel door secured by an elaborate lock with a narrow connecting hallway lined with shelves filled with communications equipment.” At the time, much was made about Biden having accidentally “blurted out,” as it were, a secret, secure hiding place in the vice presidential residence. But this turns out to have been misreported.

Biden’s spokesperson came out and explained that Biden had actually been describing an “upstairs workspace in the residence,” which was “converted into an upstairs guestroom when the Bidens moved into the residence.” Moreover, there had been “no disclosure of classified information” during the dinner.

For what it’s worth, former vice president Dick Cheney also made mention of a room within the residence — along with other “hiding places” — in his recently published memoir, In My Time.

But back to Kessler. Later on, he added that “there will be relocation of utilities, so they’re not totally lying,” but that the White House’s reports about needing walls, concrete pilings and the like to house utilities is simply not the full truth. But, he continued, don’t expect them to come clean about it.

We asked our own resident White House correspondent, Tommy Christopher, to weigh in. “In three years of covering this White House,” he said, “I’ve seen lots of reporters get jacked up by the Secret Service (myself included) for photographing things on the grounds, but nobody has hassled us about photographing this construction project. This has been going on for well over a year now, so I think this story is another case of the Slow News Day Flu.”

Have a look at Kessler’s explanation, via Fox News:

Source: Mediaite

NULLIFY NOW: Oath Keeper Sheriff Richard Mack , "This is not a violent revolution"

2011-12-18T20:34:00.001-06:00

Jan 30, 2011 Nullify now , Oath Keeper, Sheriff Richard Mack, nullification, violent revolution, peaceful revolution, bradey bill

Nullify Now! Tour WOWS Phoenix

January 29, 2011

On Saturday, January 29, the Nullify Now! 2011 tour began with a bang in Phoenix, Arizona. Hundreds of people gathered at the Sheraton Hotel in downtown Phoenix as the Tenth Amendment Center promoted nullification of unconstitutional acts by the federal government. With an array of reputable speakers like Arizona’s State Senator Sylvia Tenney Allen and The John Birch Society’s CEO, Art Thompson, the event proved to be an educational success. A national tour sponsored by WeRefuse.com and the Tenth Amendment Center, Nullify Now! focuses on the Founding principles of the United States Constitution and educates attendees about the Tenth Amendment, as well as the powers of the state including that of nullification, and a variety of issues that can be resolved by state nullification.

On Saturday, a number of speakers bemoaned the dwindling authority of the states as the federal government continues to grow, and promoted the philosophies of America’s Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who heavily supported powerful states over a powerful central government.

Tenth Amendment Center’s Derek Sheriff quoted James Madison, who said, “There can be no tribunal above the states.” According to Sheriff, proof that the states should be the highest authority is in the fact that the Constitution is a compact between the states. Likewise, the powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are limited. Furthermore, the states’ right to nullify unconstitutional laws indicates that the states are the final judge of constitutionality.

Speaker Bryce Shonka celebrated examples of the states reclaiming their authority, specifically as they are challenging Obamacare.

Most speakers emphasized the importance of reclaiming states’ rights. Stewart Rodes of The Oathkeepers declared the importance of recreating county militias, and Sheriff Richard Mack observed that state nullification was the peaceful solution to the federal government’s overreach. Jason Rink, Executive Director of the Foundation for a Free Society, proposed reclaiming the right to place the government under surveillance rather than continuing to allow the government to do so to the American people.

Art Thompson of the John Birch Society outlined the path that led the American people to this place in history, where the powers of the individual, the states, and the federal government have been inverted. It begins with rewriting history and distorting the truth, educating Americans to believe that the United States is a democracy rather than a republic, and a power struggle between elitist progressives and the American spirit.

According to Thompson, the war on America is deceptive and subversive. For example, Marxists in America have used semantics to deceive the American people, like subtly replacing the term “republic” with “democracy,” “a system of government that is the first step toward a communist state.” Thompson said, “We have had a war of words that have been used to tear down our republic.”
Much of the progressives’ success can be traced to the power they have attained in the field of education. There, they can rewrite and change history so that America’s youth no longer knows the story behind the founding of our nation. Without knowing American history, America’s future is doomed and the way to America’s transformation is paved.

Thompson declared, “We have to understand where we started in order to understand what we must do in the long term, to return to the system our Founders gave us. It is not enough to simply nullify certain onerous laws, we must educate the American people to a firm understanding of the basic principles on which our system is based.”

Also at Saturday’s event, speakers challenged the elitism of today’s lawmakers, who contend that they are better equipped to make choices pertaining to the individual than the American people are.
For example, radio host Robert Scott Bell discussed the Food and Drug Administration and its emphasis on licensed medical doctors versus homeopathic doctors, whom Bell contends can often offer better alternatives to health care.

Similarly, Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico, promoted the decriminalization of marijuana, asserting that 90 percent of the problem with the drug is caused by “prohibition” and not by abuse of the drug.

Arizona State Senator Sylvia Tenney Allen discussed the overreaching powers of federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, which she contends had a negative impact on her family’s timber business and on Arizona’s timber business as a whole, by seeking to protect endangered species like the Mexican Spotted Owl at the expense of Arizona businesses. Allen asserted that the EPA is now targeting Arizona’s coal plants in much the same way they did Arizona’s timber mills. Overall, Allen emphasized the importance of nullifying unconstitutional federal laws and regulations like those instituted by the EPA.

Overall, the speakers stressed the necessity of reclaiming the authority of the states, and view the nullification of unconstitutional laws as a viable start. State nullification has already begun to gain popularity as it has been addressed as a solution to many of America’s problems on prominent television shows like Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Freedom Watch, which airs on the Fox Business Channel 8pm daily. As a prime example of this movement towards state sovereignty, as of January 31, at least one dozen states have introduced bills to nullify the entire ObamaCare law! (See: "12 States Have Bills to Nullify ObamaCare Entirely.")

Nullify Now! 2010 proved to be largely successful, having made its way through Forth Worth, Texas, Chattanooga, Tenn., and Orlando, Florida, and featured a number of prominent speakers including New York Times best-selling author Thomas E. Woods, author of Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21 Century, and Joe Wolverton II, a constitutional lawyer and professor of American government who writes for The New American.

With a number of scheduled tours nationwide, it looks as through 2011 will reveal continuing success for the Nullify Now! tour.

Those interested in attending any of the upcoming events should visit www.nullifynow.com.
Source: The New American

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sheriff Mack Announces Lawsuit Against SPLC, Run For Congress

December 10, 2011

At a speech in Sacramento, California, on December 10, Richard Mack, former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, and founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA), announced that within a matter of days he will be filing a lawsuit in federal court against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for slander, libel and defamation.

Sheriff Mack, who successfully challenged the 1993 federal Brady handgun control act in a landmark case that went all the way through the United States Supreme Court, has been an outspoken champion of constitutionally limited government and a critic of federal usurpation and abuse of police powers. The forty-year-old Southern Poverty Law Center is notorious for lionizing left-wing extremists (such as unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers) and equally notorious for smearing innocent individuals and organizations with the “racist,” “extremist,” “anti-semitic,” “anti-government,” and “hate group” labels. It is not surprising then that it has targeted Richard Mack for vicious treatment in a number of its publications and web sites over the years. But even more troubling than what it has published about him, says Sheriff Mack, are the lies that it has spread to law enforcement agencies about him in the seminars and training programs the SPLC conducts for federal, state, and local agencies.

Sheriff Mack, who was a speaker, along with this writer at the 53rd Anniversary Banquet of The John Birch Society in Sacramento, also announced to the assembled guests that he would also soon be filing papers to run in the Republican primary for the 21st Congressional District of Texas against incumbent Rep. Lamar Smith, whom Mack describes a “RINO” (Republican In Name Only). The 21st District includes much of San Antonio and Austin, as well as Fredericksburg, where Mack now resides.

In an interview with The New American after the banquet, Sheriff Mack, explained that he had contemplated a lawsuit against the SPLC for the past several months, but the difficulty, time, and expense of taking on such an endeavor against the well-funded organization had prevented him from doing so. In May of this year, however, he received a telephone call from an SPLC “reporter.” Mack says he was amazed and told the reporter: “This is really funny. You guys have been lying about me for 15 years and this is the first time you’ve bothered to call me.”

The reporter asked, “When did we ever lie about you?”

Sheriff Mack recounted the telephone conversation:

I said, well, recently you said I believe in shooting federal agents, killing federal agents — IRS agents in particular. I said I have never said anything like that. I don’t believe in violence. I spent 20 years in law enforcement and never slugged or slapped or hit or maced or shot another human being. So I don’t believe in violence and I’m not a violent perso

The SPLC reporter said he would check into that. Later that day, says Mack, he received a call from spokesman Mark Potok, who edits the organization’s Intelligence Report. Potok said, “Sheriff, we owe you an apology.”

Sheriff Mack says “I knocked on the phone and said ‘Is this really Mark Potok of the SPLC who doesn’t care who they lie about? I don’t trust you.’”

Mack says Potok then admitted, “We went back and reviewed the tape where we reported you advocated shooting agents and that isn’t what you said.”

Potok agreed to reprint a retraction. However, says Mack, the retraction was a tiny paragraph, compared to the massive coverage they had given to the earlier false charges about him. And it could not even begin to undo the vast damage they done in smearing his name and the CSPOA before other law enforcement agencies.

Mack pointed out that Sheriff Dwight Nothstein of Carbon County, Pennsylvania, for instance, has publicly compared Sheriff Mack to Hitler and repeated the SPLC charge that he has advocated shooting federal agents.

“It does hurt me to see that the SPLC, which does training for every federal law enforcement agency, including other police and sheriffs agencies all across the country, will actually tell these people that there’s something inherently wrong with someone who quotes the Founding Fathers and our Constitution,” he told The New American. “That’s all I’m guilty of. And isn’t it interesting that I’m called a racist, a bigot, a hate group monger, and I [supposedly] hate everybody because I simply quote American ideals as expressed by the Founding Fathers? That’s my ‘crime.’ And yet I get slandered all over the country to my fellow brothers and sisters in law enforcement.”

But the Sheriff is not one to let such things get him down; besides a busy speaking schedule, he is very active with a number of positive efforts and is always upbeat and optimistic. In addition to launching his SPLC lawsuit and a congressional campaign, he is also releasing his newly published book, The Magic of Gun Control (cover shown above) and gearing up for his CSPOA “Constitutional Sheriffs Convention” in January 2012 in Las Vegas. He is hoping to bring together 150-200 sheriffs from across the country, together with other law enforcement officers to discuss with them their role in the “lawful and peaceful way to restore the Constitution and its Bill of Rights as the supreme law of the land.”

Related articles:
Nullify Now!

Protecting Rights: Loyal Americans Targeted by the SPLC

Can the County Sheriff Save the Constitution?

Eric Holder & President Bill Clinton Pardoned Terrorists

2011-12-18T04:02:00.006-06:00

Just a reminder of Eric Holder's Past.....for those that missed my earlier post about his ties to another cover up of the torture and murder of an innocent American citizen, you can learn more about that here.

Very revealing video. Now Eric Holder may well be positioning himself to release more terrorists, or at very least to use the civilian court system to attack the very tactics employed for keeping America free from attacks. Are we going to be right back in the cross hairs.

Eric Holder assisted Janet Reno during Waco, Ruby Ridge and Eliyan Gonzales, I venture to say that his focus is on a perspective that few

Americans share. Very few. Let your voice be heard, ask the White house, Senate and Congress call the Capitol switchboard now - (202) 224-3121 to quash the civillian hearing of our terrorists. We don't want to risk their release back into the general public.

FALN is the acronym for Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional
English: Armed Forces of National Liberation

Referring to:
Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (Puerto Rico)
Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (Venezuela)


H/T Michelle Malkin

How Eric Holder fixed the FALN pardons

By Michelle Malkin • January 9, 2009 10:18 AM

The Los Angeles Times, mirabile dictu, breaks from the Obamedia pack and does some digging into Attorney General nominee Eric Holders past history as a political fixer for the Puerto Rican FALN terrorists -Michelle Malkin

Attorney general nominee Eric H. Holder Jr. repeatedly pushed some of his subordinates at the Clinton Justice Department to drop their opposition to a controversial 1999 grant of clemency to 16 members of two violent Puerto Rican nationalist organizations, according to interviews and documents…

…President Clinton’s decision to commute prison terms caused an uproar at the time. Holder was called before Congress to explain his role but declined to answer numerous questions from angry lawmakers demanding to know why the Justice Department had not sided with the FBI, federal prosecutors and other law enforcement officials, who were vehemently opposed to the grants.

Some religious groups and influential individuals, including President Carter, had endorsed the commutations. But Clinton’s decision outraged law enforcement officials, who had tried to contain a bombing campaign in New York, Chicago and elsewhere in the 1970s and 1980s by groups seeking independence for Puerto Rico from the United States.
New interviews and an examination of previously undisclosed documents indicate that Holder played an active role in changing the position of the Justice Department on the commutations.

Holder instructed his staff at Justice’s Office of the Pardon Attorney to effectively replace the department’s original report recommending against any commutations, which had been sent to the White House in 1996, with one that favored clemency for at least half the prisoners, according to these interviews and documents.

And after Pardon Attorney Roger Adams resisted, Holder’s chief of staff instructed him to draft a neutral “options memo” instead, Adams said.

The options memo allowed Clinton to grant the commutations without appearing to go against the Justice Department’s wishes, Adams and his predecessor, Margaret Colgate Love, said in their first public comments on the case.

“I remember this well, because it was such a big deal to consider clemency for a group of people convicted of such heinous crimes,” said Adams, the agency’s top pardon lawyer from 1997 until 2008. He said he told Holder of his “strong opposition to any clemency in several internal memos and a draft report recommending denial” and in at least one face-to-face meeting. But each time Holder wasn’t satisfied, Adams said.

The 16 members of the FALN (the Spanish acronym for Armed Forces of National Liberation) and Los Macheteros had been convicted in Chicago and Hartford variously of bank robbery, possession of explosives and participating in a seditious conspiracy. Overall, the two groups had been linked by the FBI to more than 130 bombings, several armed robberies, six slayings and hundreds of injuries.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Attorney General Eric Holder's Record of Corruption

RELATED LINKS:
THE ETHICS OF ERIC HOLDER **EXCELLENT ARTICLE
CULTURE OF CORRUPTION-HOLDER, TERRORISTS, COVINGTON BURLING
TERRORISTS KILLED MY DAD
CONFIRMING FEARS-NRO

BOB HOPE'S USO CHRISTMAS SPECIALS~THANKS FOR THE MEMORIES

2011-12-17T16:57:00.006-06:00

Thanks For The Memories…

O'Reilly Factor Tribute to Bob Hope

Bob Hope Christmases with the troops

This is an awesome tribute to Bob Hope:

BOB HOPE CHRISTMAS SPECIAL

1967 ARC Identifier 64135 / Local Identifier 342-SFP-1848. Presents Bob Hope's annual USO tour of Southeast Asian military bases. Features Raquel Welch, Elaine Dunn, Phil Crosby, Barbara McNair, and Miss World, Madeleine Hartog Bell. Department of Defense. Department of the Air Force.

Bob Hope was always the star and began each show by strutting on stage with his golf club, firing off jokes tailored to each base. And he always brought the outstanding glamor star from back home. On the 1967 tour, actress Raquel Welch joined Hope on stage to add a few crowd-pleasing dance moves to Bob's rendition of "Dancing in the Streets."

One of the few constants of the Vietnam War—one eagerly anticipated by American troops, that is—was the annual Bob Hope Christmas Show. From 1964 to 1972, Hope included South Vietnam on his annual trips to visit troops during the holiday season, a tradition that started for him during World War II. "Back in 1941, at March Field, California…I still remember fondly that first soldier audience," Hope once said. "I looked at them, they laughed at me, and it was love at first sight."

Security was exceptionally tight for Bob Hope's first visit to Vietnam. Although the planners

had made intricate arrangements through the offices of Military Assistance Command Vietnam (MACV) prior to his December 24 landing, there had been no official announcements or confirmation of Hope's visit. And the locations of all his shows remained secret. Even Hope and his staff never knew the name of the base they were to perform at until they landed. Reporters noted that plans for Hope's visits to different areas were more secret than those for generals or Cabinet officials. Troops who made up the audiences were never told who would be visiting until the last minute.

Hope and his entourage were given stern warnings from MACV. While some were routine for any overseas travel—avoid all water and ice because none was safe to drink, and stay away from all milk products—the threats related to terrorism were especially serious. They were told to stay away from windows in restaurants and in their hotel rooms, and to keep their drapes closed. And a final caution: Drop to the floor when they heard an explosion. In spite of the dangers, the shows went on, but the sound of aircraft overhead during a performance always brought a startled look from Hope.

In 1966, for the first time in many years, Bob Hope's partner and friend since the tours in WWII, Jerry Colonna, was unable to join the troupe after suffering a stroke. Nevertheless, Hope's company, featuring guest stars Phyllis Diller and Heatherton, left Los Angeles on December 16, and by Christmas they were at Cu Chi. Actress Chris Noel, who was asked by Hope to join the show for this performance, arrived on a chopper in time to join him and the troops for a traditional turkey dinner in the mess. Noticing some men precariously perched on tall poles before the show began, Hope asked during his opening monologue, "How did you get up there? LSD?"

The tenor of the Christmas tour of 1966 reflected changing attitudes in the United States regarding the course of the war, and Hope's humor didn't shy away from it. He reassured the troops that "the country is behind you 50 percent." He then added, "I'm very happy to be here; I'm leaving tomorrow!"

While Hope largely kept his personal opinions out of his on-stage performances, he spoke freely with reporters off stage. At one stop, he announced he was definitely "hawkish" and expressed his desire that the "United States would move a little faster to end the war."

RELATED LINKS: HISTORY.NET

Eric Holder Implicated In Cover Up Of Murder Of Kenneth Trentadue In 1995

2011-12-17T10:41:00.013-06:00

To help you understand the story behind the torture/murder of Kenneth Trentadue and how his murder has exposed a connection of the FBI to the Oklahoma City bombing and, at that time, Deputy Attorney General, Eric Holder's part in blocking any investigation into this murder.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OKLAHOMA STATE MEDICAL EXAMINER SPEAKING OUT AGAINST CLINTON-RENO JUSTICE

JULY 3, 1997, Interview with Oklahoma State Medical Examiner, Dr. Fred Jordan. Dr. Jordan speaks out about the Clinton-Reno Justice Department's efforts to cover-up the torture-murder of Kenneth Trentadue. This cover-up was referred to within the Justice Department as the 'Trentadue Mission.' Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder played a key role in the Trentadue Mission. Mr. Holder was tasked with derailing a Senate Judiciary inquiry into Trentadue's murder by the FBI.

Dr. Fred B. Jordan, the Chief Medical Examiner of the state of Oklahoma, was stunned at the destruction of evidence by federal authorities and at the way federal officials blocked his office from carrying out required duties. In a memo to the file dated December 20, 1995, Dr. Jordan described his frustration over being stonewalled by top Department of Justice officials in Washington. He recorded that he confided to the Assistant U.S. Attorney in Oklahoma City that “I felt Mr. Trentadue had been abused and tortured.”

Two years later Dr. Jordan said on a Fox News Interview (July 3, 1997):

“I think it’s very likely he [Kenneth Trentadue] was murdered. I’m not able to prove it. I have temporarily classified the death as undetermined. You see a body covered with blood, removed from the room as Mr. Trentadue was, soaked in blood, covered with bruises, and you try to gain access to the scene and the government of the United States says no, you can’t.

“They [the federal government] continued to prohibit us from having access to the scene of his death, which is unheard of, until about five months later. When we went in [the cell] and luminoled, it lit up like a candle because blood was still present on the walls of the room after four or five months. But at that point we have no crime scene, so there are still questions about the death of Kenneth Trentadue that will never be answered because of the actions of the U.S. government.”

Dr. Jordan’s effort to do his job brought him under great pressure and harassment from federal authorities. Realizing his peril, on August 25, 1997, Dr. Jordan wrote to IRS Commissioner Margaret Richardson:

“The requirements of my job as chief Medical Examiner for the State of Oklahoma are currently bringing me into an uncomfortable juxtaposition with the United States Department of Justice. In order to protect myself from retribution, I would like information as to how to request a protective audit from your agency. By this, I simply mean a standard audit in order to avoid having your agency used to harass me as I proceed with my inquiries into a death that directly relates to the Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City.”

In a handwritten memo to his file dated October 22, 1997, of a telephone conversation with U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan (D, ND), Dr. Jordan recorded: “confirmed my feelings that the investigation was crippled, the decedent was at the least beaten, we haven’t found the truth and probably won’t, reiterated my lack of trust in the Fed. gov’t and the Dept of Justice in particular.”

Unable to secure from Dr. Jordan a ruling that Trentadue’s injuries were self-inflicted, the DOJ sought the cooperation of Dr. Bill Gormley, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. Dr. Gormley came to the same conclusion as Dr. Jordan and came under the same pressures. In a memo to file dated May 30, 1997, Kevin Rowland, Chief Investigator in the Oklahoma Medical Examiner’s Office records a telephone call he had from Dr. Gormley:

“The basic purposes for his call was to 1-find out what they [DOJ] are up to because he was very suspicious, and 2-ask if I might be able to explain why they only wanted certain testimony from him, since he told them that we had already given them the truth. He was troubled that they only seemed interested in him saying it might be possible these injuries are self-inflicted.”

Senator Orrin Hatch (R, UT) threatened the DOJ with Senate Judiciary Hearings on the case. However, FBI documents (Dec. 5, 1997 and Jan. 28, 1998) indicate that FBI agents succeeded in pulling the wool over the eyes of Senator Don Nickles (R, OK) and using him to prevent Hatch’s investigation.

Federal harassment of, and accusations against, Dr. Jordan built to the point that on March 12, 1998, the Assistant Attorney General of Oklahoma, Patrick T. Crawley, wrote to the US Department of Justice:

“The real tragedy in this case appears to be the perversion of law through chicanery and the misuse of public trust under the guise of some aberrant form of federalism. In a succession of either illegal, negligent, or just plain stupid acts, your clients [FBI, DOJ, Bureau of Prisons] succeeded in derailing the medical examiner’s investigation and, thereby, may have obstructed justice in this case. As more and more information is revealed in this case, primarily through the efforts of Jesse Trentadue [lawyer brother of victim], it appears that your clients, and perhaps others within the Department of Justice, have been abusing the powers of their respective offices. If this is true, all Americans should be very frightened of your clients and the DOJ.”

Despite the protection of the Oklahoma Attorney General, sufficient pressure was brought against Dr. Jordan to cause him to abandon his position. On November 28, 2000, at the civil trial brought by Jesse Trentadue against the United States, Dr. Jordan was asked: “You didn’t find any evidence of beating or torture, did you?” He answered: “No, there is no evidence to substantiate beating or torture.”

Despite Dr. Jordan’s changed testimony, the presiding federal judge in the Trentadue civil suit saw enough evidence that much was amiss to award the Trentadue family $1.1 million for suffering harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress by the federal government.

Read More

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

‘Fast & Furious’ Not Eric Holder’s First Controversy Involving the Murder of an American Citizen

October 10th, 2011

While some in the news media say Eric Holder’s involvement in the controversial ATF gun-running program known as Operation Fast and Furious is “only the tip of the iceberg,” Salt Lake City attorney Jesse Trentadue says he “was way ahead of the curve” in pointing out the attorney general’s involvement in shady activities. He points to a scathing 4-page letter (PDF) he sent to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) Dec. 19, 2008, as proof.

You need to know that Eric Holder, now nominated to become Attorney General, played a key role in covering up the torture-murder of my brother, Kenneth Michael Trentadue. You also need to know that Mr. Holder did this while serving as Deputy Attorney General and Acting Attorney General from 1997-2001.

This is not just my shocking opinion. It is also the opinion of many Americans. More importantly, it is supported by the Justice Department’s records and actions that came to light as a result of my family’s efforts to obtain a certain measure of justice for my brother’s murder.

Kenneth was killed in Oklahoma City in August of 1995. My family has spent over 13 years investigating my brother’s gruesome murder, including bringing a wrongful death lawsuit in federal court in 1997. In that case, the Justice Department hid and destroyed evidence that would have exposed my brother’s murders, and we believe that Mr. Holder was directly involved in those acts of obstruction of justice.

In a footnote appearing on page one of that letter, Trentadue noted the following:

“Despite the destruction of evidence, the court awarded my family a $1 million judgment. We have used that money to offer a $250,000 reward for the people who killed Kenney. That offer is posted at: www.kmtreward.com. This site also contains the irrefutable evidence that my brother was murdered, which evidence was kept from us by the Justice Department.”

Trentadue’s letter continues:

To this day, however, despite the efforts of my family, numerous journalists, and Congress, the Justice Department has been able to hide this terrible story — and its culpability in the death of my brother Kenneth. More importantly, then Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder was assigned to be the point man in blocking my family’s efforts to bring my brother Kenneth Trentadue’s murderers to justice. Now, President-elect Barack Obama has nominated Eric Holder to be the new Attorney General.

The paper trail on Mr. Holder’s actions is scant. However, e-mails and handwritten notes by those working under Mr. Holder in the Justice Department have surfaced. These documents paint a clear picture of a wide-ranging and cynical scheme, run directly by Mr. Holder, to quash my family’s efforts to have my brother’s murder investigated, and to deflect congressional oversight and media attention from the shocking circumstances of his death.

According to these documents, a significant part of this plan involved Mr. Holder convincing Congress not to inquire into my brother’s murder. The plan called for Mr. Holder to meet with Senator Hatch on October 9, 1997, just prior to the Justice Department’s issuance of a Press Release announcing that the federal grand jury supposedly “investigating” my brother’s murder had failed to charge anyone with this crime.

The stated purpose of this meeting between Mr. Holder and Senator Hatch was to defuse Judiciary Committee oversight and media inquiry into the circumstances of my brother’s death. In fact, one e-mail states that “we ain’t looking for press on this. Hill takes priority.”

But that meeting apparently did not go as planned by Mr. Holder, because the next day, October 10, 1997, Senator Hatch gave an exclusive interview to Fox News in which he spoke out against the results of the grand jury and the Justice Department’s handling of the case.

Rather than share Trentadue’s summary of what Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), told Fox News during the interview Oct. 10, 1997, I offer video (below) of the interview itself.

Did you catch that? Senator Hatch said, “There’s a lot wrong with this case.” Not surprisingly, Jesse Trentadue agrees and points anyone willing to listen to the remaining content of his letter to Senator Leahy (PDF) before noting the following:

Judiciary Letter To Sen. Pat Leahy Regarding Eric Holder Cover Up Of Murder Of Kenneth Trentadue

Fast & Furious is only the “tip of the iceberg”;

Two U.S. Border Patrol agents are dead;

The Oklahoma City Bombing is the “iceberg”; and

168 bombing victims, plus his brother Kenneth Trentadue, are dead.

For more information about Trentadue’s pursuit of justice, read “Operation Fast and Furious” Coverup Not Unique, my other reports about the Oklahoma City Bombing and visit Kenneth Trentadue.com.

UPDATE 12/03/11 at 1:03 p.m. Central: Story picked up by Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com.

UPDATE 12/03/11 at 2:25 p.m. Central: Trentedue tells me that the reward mentioned in his letter expired without anyone claiming it. “That tells me that some very powerful people were involved in my brother’s murder and the cover up of that crime!” he said.

Source: Bob McCarty Writes

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Attorney General Holder Tied to OKC Bombers

With a past such as this, how can Eric Holder be entrusted to hold ANY office in the United States of America? This story has been swept under the carpet but needs to be brought back out into the light of day. Attorney General Eric Holder must be held to account. Justice must be served in the obvious cover-up of the apparent torture and murder (that was originally ruled a suicide) of Kenny Trentadue, a government informant, in Oklahoma City.

Implications in this case point fingers at the FBI and DOJ as being participants in the Oklahoma City bombing. According to American Free Press:

Eric Holder, current attorney general of the United States, managed an FBI operation that provided explosives to Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols just prior to the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, according to official documents released during the ongoing investigation into government foreknowledge of the supposed terrorist attack.

According to the documentation provided in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit brought against the Department of Justice by Salt Lake City attorney Jesse Trentadue, the Oklahoma City bombing had aspects of being an FBI sting operation that went out of control. Holder had authorized the FBI to provide explosives to Nichols and McVeigh, then lost track of both the explosives and their targets. McVeigh went on to detonate some of the explosives outside the federal building, an act that was designed to help anti-terrorism legislation pass Congress. But an additional case of explosives was unaccounted for.

After the bombing, when the FBI learned the location of the explosives, Holder reportedly sent emails to FBI agents ordering them to recover the explosives before they could be found by some other branch of the government. FBI agents failed to spot the additional, unexploded explosives during an initial search of Nichols’s home and offered to spare him the death penalty if he would help them recover them.

The case of explosives was, however, recovered by another law enforcement agency and was later determined to have the incriminating fingerprints of two FBI agents, as well as fingerprints of McVeigh and Nichols.

Shortly after the bombing, Kenneth Trentadue, a government informant, was murdered in his prison cell. His family has been pursuing legal action against the federal government ever since.

In 2001, in a bid to avoid a full release of documents, the Federal Bureau of Prisons paid a settlement of $1.1 million to several members of Trentadue’s family, but his brother refused to drop the investigation and filed a FOIA lawsuit for the missing documents. That suit has been ongoing in the Salt Lake City federal courthouse.

Oklahoma City Bombing RARE footage

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

4/17/2011 Kenneth Trentadue was murdered in the Oklahoma City Federal Transfer Center in August, 1995. The authorities ruled it a suicide. Join us this week on The Corbett Report as we explore the incredible story of Jesse Trentadue, Kenney’s brother, who has spent the last two decades working to find out what really happened to his brother…and how it connects to the Oklahoma City Bombing.

http://www.corbettreport.com/episode182-kenneth-trentadue/

6/16/2011 The Corbett Report is joined once again by Salt Lake City-based attorney Jesse Trentadue who has been doggedly pursuing the truth about the Oklahoma City Bombing since the murder of his brother in 1995. Today he updates us on a federal judge’s recent startling ruling in his fight to pry the Murrah Building surveillance tapes from the FBI…and the revelations about a secret evidence storage drive that the FBI uses to hide documents from FOIA requests.

http://www.corbettreport.com/interview-343-jesse-trentadue/

KennethTrentadue.com

Truth In Justice

Mother Jones

The Corbett Report

Ct. Mayor Wants To Allow Illegal Aliens To Vote In Local Elections

2011-12-16T22:09:00.005-06:00

The debate over illegal immigration in New Haven has people fired up, as Mayor DeStefano wants voting rights for illegal residents in the City of New Haven and he's explaining his reasoning behind it to News 8.

CT mayor wants illegals to vote

Says they already pay taxes indirectly
Updated: Wednesday, 14 Dec 2011, 12:36 PM EST
Published : Wednesday, 14 Dec 2011, 11:24 AM EST

NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) - Gov. Dannel P. Malloy is reacting coolly to New Haven Mayor John DeStefano's plan to ask the state legislature to allow illegal immigrants who live in the city to vote in municipal elections.

Malloy said Wednesday that "it's not an idea that I'm particularly comfortable with." The Democratic governor said he believes there are obligations and privileges that come with legal citizenship.

Malloy said he's still willing to "hear the mayor out" on his proposal, which follows the lead of other cities.

Immigrants who are in the U.S. legally or illegally, and may not vote now, would still be unable to vote in state or federal elections.

DeStefano said illegal immigrants pay taxes indirectly through rent and send their kids to New Haven schools and should be able to vote.

Copyright Associated Press, Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What is the definition of Citizenship

Courtesy of Grolier's New Book of Knowledge

A citizen is a participatory member of a political community. Citizenship is gained by meeting the legal requirements of a national, state, or local government. A nation grants certain rights and privileges to its citizens. In return, citizens are expected to obey their country's laws and defend it against its enemies.

The value of citizenship varies from nation to nation. In some countries, citizenship can mean a citizen has the right to vote, the right to hold government offices, and the right to collect unemployment insurance payments, to name a few examples.

Living in a country does not mean that a person is necessarily a citizen of that country. Citizens of one country who live in a foreign country are known as aliens. Their rights and duties are determined by political treaties and by the laws of the country in which they stay. In the United States, aliens must obey the laws and pay taxes, just as U.S. citizens do. They must register with the U.S. government to obtain legal permission to stay for an extended length of time. Legal aliens are entitled to protection under the law and to use of the courts. They may also own property, carry on business, and attend public schools. But aliens cannot vote or hold government office. In some states they are not allowed to practice certain professions until they become citizens.

Under United States law, a noncitizen national is a person who is neither a citizen nor an alien but who owes permanent loyalty to the United States. People in this category have some but not all of the rights of citizens. For example, inhabitants of a United States territory may not have the right to vote. Noncitizen nationals of the United States include those people on the Pacific islands of American Samoa who were born after the territory was taken over by the United States in 1900.

Ward Whipple
Editor, Civic Leader

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here's a Progressive definition of citizen:
cit·i·zen (st-zn)

1. A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation.

2. A resident of a city or town, especially one entitled to vote and enjoy other privileges there.

3. A civilian.

4. A native, inhabitant, or denizen of a particular place: "We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community" (Franklin D. Roosevelt).

MF Global Employee Indicated Corzine Knew Loans Were Made From Customer Accounts

2011-12-13T23:15:00.000-06:00

During Senate Hearing, MF Global Employee Terry Duffy says that Corzine knew loans were made from customer accounts (December 13, 2011)

A President of Honor (VIDEO)

2011-12-10T22:16:00.002-06:00

Regardless of who you plan on voting for, please watch this video.
Five retired military heroes offer their support for Governor Rick Perry for President. This is a VERY POWERFUL video.
http://www.rickperry.org/veterans

Congressman Joe Walsh Announces 8th District Run at Chicago Tea Party 12/8/2011

2011-12-09T22:55:00.000-06:00

This is an excellent video of Congressman Joe Walsh. While talking to the audience about the imminent threat the Democrats are to the very existence of our country he announces he will run again for office. This announcement was made at the Cubby Bear on 12/8/2011 at the Chicago Tea Party monthly meeting.

Rep. Issa Accuses Eric Holder of Lying To Congress And Resisting Being Sworn In To Testify Before Congress

2011-12-09T14:09:00.003-06:00

Rep. Issa Accuses Eric Holder of Lying To Congress And Resisting Being Sworn In To Testify Before Congress
From: oversightandreform | Dec 8, 2011

http://FastandFuriousINVESTIGATION.com

Fox News Sean Hannity Show

*****~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*****

ERIC HOLDER'S TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS 12/08/2011

Issa Pushes Holder for Truth on Handling of Fast and Furious~

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, questions Attorney General during a House Judiciary Committee hearing about Operation Fast and Furious and whether he would be willing to testify before OGR in January.

Gowdy Questions AG Holder on Key Players Involved with Fast & Furious:

Rep. Dennis Ross to AG Holder: You Can Delegate Authority, But You Cannot Delegate Responsibility

Rep. Dennis Ross (R-FL) questions Attorney General Holder on the failed and deadly Operation Fast and Furious during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on December 8, 2011.

Rep. Trey Gowdy to AG Holder: Wiretaps for Operation Fast & Furious and Hierarchy of Key DOJ Players:

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) questions Attorney General Eric Holder during a House Judiciary Committee on Operation Fast and Furious.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz to AG Holder: Where Is Communication B/W DOJ, Obama Administration, & Mexican Gov't?

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) questions Attorney General Eric Holder during a House Judiciary Committee hearing about Operation Fast and Furious.

Issa on Fast & Furious: AG Holder and DOJ Continue To Delay Oversight Investigation

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, questions Attorney General Eric Holder during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on December 8, 2011.

Rep. Steve King Questions Holder on Fast and Furious and Pigford Farmers settlement:

Congressman Steve King Questions Attorney General Holder on Fast & Furious and Pigford Farmers - 12/8/2011

National Guard Soldier Arrested For Not Wanting to Fire On American Citizens (must watch)

2011-12-08T22:52:00.000-06:00

It's not going to be a walk through the park Guys. Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst.
mirrored from SsgMercerTD on Dec 8, 2011
https://www.youtube.com/user/SsgMercerTD

SsgMercerTD's webcam video December 8, 2011 11:02 AM

FORMER EMPLOYESS LAUNCH LAWSUIT AGAINST FORMER GOVERNOR JON CORZINE

2011-12-08T00:35:00.000-06:00

Inside former employees' lawsuit against former governor Corzine, executives over brokerage firm's collapse and lost billions.

CROSS POST: MF Global Looted Customers' Accounts Via Internal Bank Run Just Days Before Declaring Bankruptcy!

RELATED LINKS:
A CHEAT SHEET FOR LAWMAKERS GRILLING JON CORZINE
CORZINE REQUESTS EXTRA TIME FOR STATEMENT DURING TESTIMONYHow Tough Will House Panel be on Former N.J. Governor?

David Horowitz Releases Must See Video: Obama- The Anti-Israel President

2011-12-08T00:13:00.000-06:00

Yet another video exposing the disdain President Obama feels toward the nation of Israel.

"David Horowitz Releases Must See Video: Obama- The Anti-Israel President

"Thanks to the David Horowitz Freedom Center for this video."

RELATED LINKS:
Envoy’s anti-Semitism analysis creates new problem for Obama administration with Jewish groups
Obama Administration Pressuring Israel to Help Rebuild Hamas Terror - Offering $900 Million!
New York Jews rebuke Obama's anti-Israel policies
Obama's anti-Israel speech should surpise no one
Obama backs envoy after Israel remarks
Obama's Anti-Israel UN Speech
Reports: Netanyahu 'Humiliated' by Obama Snub

Obama Says Capitalism And Liberty Don't Work-Apparently He Wants America To Look Like Greece

2011-12-06T22:42:00.000-06:00

Speaking in Kansas where Teddy Roosevelt advocated for socialism 101 years ago, President Obama argues against free markets, explaining that the founders concept of a capitalist society doesn't work, and the risks of liberty are too great. It's bigger government that's needed.

‘Legalized Bribery’: How Bad is Congressional Insider Trading? You Might be Shocked at Some of the Details Revealed by Glenn Beck and Peter Schweizer

2011-12-06T15:18:00.000-06:00

“How can we fix our country with this going on?” Glenn Beck asks Peter Schweizer.

“We can’t,” Schweizer responds, shaking his head. “And you know, Glenn, if we can’t fix this?”

“You can’t fix anything,” Beck says, finishing the sentence for him.

What are they discussing that’s so serious as to prohibit America from being fixed? Congressional insider trading.

In case you‘re unfamiliar with Washington’s most recent scandal, Peter Schweizer has written a bombshell book titled “Throw Them all Out” that carefully details multiple cases where members of Congress have made outrageous gains in the stock market by trading on information available only to them. Ordinarily, that’s called “insider trading” and it’s highly illegal. Yet, somehow, Congress is able to get away with it.

READ MORE: THE BLAZE

WHY ARE BIBLES BANNED AT WALTER REED HOSPITAL? THAT'S WHAT REP. STEVEN KING WANTS TO KNOW!

2011-12-03T13:57:00.002-06:00

The House Floor Speech about the military banning the bible starts at 4:28

"No Religious items, i.e., bibles, reading materials, and or artifacts are allowed to be given away or used during a visit"
Walter Reed Bans Bibles 9.14.11

FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL WRITES:

***Breaking News*** As we were about to hit the send button on this email, FRC received word that the military may have rescinded its Bible ban. We will have more to report on Monday.

The soldiers who wake up in Walter Reed Medical Center are in Maryland--not communist China. But under the Navy's new rules, they may not know the difference! After months of peeling away the military's core values, Obama's army is on the move. And this time, it has a high-value target: the Bible. In a memo obtained by FRC, Navy officials have announced that "no religious items (including Bibles, reading material, and/or artifacts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit." The new orders are buried in a four-page document about patient care, which an Army officer forwarded to us in disbelief. Effective immediately, families, friends, and even pastors will have to check their beliefs at the door to visit one of the largest military hospitals in the United States.

Last night, after we circulated the memo to leaders on the Hill, an outraged Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) took to the House floor and blasted the policy. "Mr. Speaker, these military men and women who are recovering at Walter Reed and Bethesda have given their all for America ... They've defended and taken an oath to the Constitution, and here they are. The people that come to visit them can't bring a religious artifact? They can't bring a Bible? ...A priest can't walk in with the Eucharist and offer communion to a patient who might be on their deathbed because it's prohibited in this memo from the Department of the Navy?"

This is Obama's military, where homosexuality is celebrated and Christianity is censored; where witches are financed and crosses are scorned; where bestiality is embraced and Bibles are banned; where same-sex "weddings" are encouraged but international charity is not. After three years of ideological warfare, the administration's intent is clear: to disarm the military of its biggest weapon. Faith. Regardless of President Obama's agenda, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that empowers the government to stop family members from giving Bibles or crosses to their loved ones. And from a PR standpoint, I'm not sure the best way to boost approval ratings is by denying comfort to wounded warriors. Unfortunately for our troops, who have endured so much turmoil under the Obama administration, this is another blow. Hopefully, with the help of Congressman King and others, it's only a temporary one.

It was a grueling three hours for officials at Health and Human Services (HHS), but Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) certainly got his point across. Yesterday, in a packed room, House leaders pounced on the Obama administration for its religious bias in government outreach. At the heart of the discussion was HHS's decision to cut off funding for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' (USCCB) program for sex trafficking victims. Despite scoring the second highest in HHS's own evaluation process, political appointees refused to renew USCCB's contract, and sources inside the agency say the group's pro-life beliefs--not its program delivery--were to blame. George Sheldon, the Obama appointee who made the final decision (against the recommendations of his own staffers), took the brunt of yesterday's criticism.

Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), who regularly highlights the problem of sex trafficking in Congress, talked about the abuse of the HHS process. "In this system, grants are becoming earmarks." Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) asked Sheldon what was on everyone's mind: " Why do you have a point system if you are going to ignore it? ...What score would have been good enough to award the USCCB? What else could they have done other than scoring high enough, performing well and being recommended by career staff?" Another friend of FRC, Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-N.Y.), explained how traumatizing it would be to push abortion on women who are already suffering physically and emotionally. While the matter is far from over, we congratulate Chairman Issa and others for taking the time to spotlight the corruption at HHS. Maybe next time, officials will think twice about discriminating against organizations like the USCCB.

SOURCE: FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL

RELATED STORY:

U.S. Military to Rescind Policy Banning Bibles at Hospital

Walter Reed National Military Medical Center said they are rescinding a policy that prohibits family members of wounded military troops from bringing Bibles or any religious reading materials to their loved ones.

The decision to rescind the ban on Bibles came exactly one day after a Republican lawmaker denounced the policy on the House floor and called on President Obama to publicly renounce the military policy.

“The President of the United States should address this and should excoriate the people who brought about this policy and the individual who brought it about should be dismissed from the United States Military,” Rep. Steve King (R-IA) told Fox News & Commentary.

King spoke from the House floor Thursday blasting a policy memorandum from the commander of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center written by Chief of Staff C.W. Callahan. The September 14^th memo covers guidelines for “wounded, ill, and injured partners in care.”

“No religious items (i.e. Bibles, reading material, and/or artifacts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit,” the policy states.

“That means you can’t bring in a Bible and read from it when you visit your son or your daughter, perhaps – or your wife or husband,” King said. “It means a priest that might be coming in to visit someone on their death bed couldn’t bring in the Eucharist, couldn’t offer Last Rites. This is the most outrageous affront.”

A spokesperson for the medical center told Fox News late Friday that the policy will be rewritten and its intent will be made “crystal clear.”

“The instructions about the Bibles and reading material have been rescinded,” said Sandy Dean, a public affairs officer for Walter Reed. “It will be written to articulate our initial intention which was to respect religious and cultural practices of our patients.”

Dean said the instruction was “in no way meant to prohibit family members from providing religious items to their loved ones at all.”

If that’s the case, why is the policy being rescinded?

“We don’t want there to be any misinterpretation of what we’re trying to say,” she told Fox News. “We appreciate Congressman King bringing this to our attention. We don’t want our instructions to be ambiguous.”

We appreciate him bringing it to our attention.

Rep. King said the military has some explaining to do.

“I don’t think there’s any excuse for it and there’s no talking it away,” King told Fox News. “The very existence of this, whether it’s enforced or not, tells you what kind of a mindset is there.”

“The idea that these soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that have fought to defend our Constitution, and that includes our First Amendment rights to religious liberty –would be denied that religious liberty when they are lying in a hospital bed recovering from wounds incurred while defending that liberty is the most bitter and offensive type of an irony that I can think of,” he said.

The policy has brought strong condemnation from religious and conservative advocacy groups.

“It flies in the face of not only the Bill of Rights, but 200 years of federal law,” said Ken Klukwoski, of the Family Research Council. “This current administration is showing unprecedented hostility towards those practicing the Christian faith.”

“But beyond that,” he told Fox News, “We’ve also seen a militantly secular attitude of trying to sterilize the Defense Department of all references to faith.”

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, echoed Rep. King’s demand that whoever is responsible for the memo be fired.

“It cannot be allowed to stand,” Land told Fox News. “It must be rescinded and the people responsible for perpetrating it should be fired.”

Land said the policy “shows the ugly face of the pseudo-tolerance of secularism.”
“They claim to be tolerant but this is as intolerant as you can be – to not allow wounded soldiers to have religious artifacts,” Land said.

King said Americans must “take a very strong stand.”

“Christians are generally nice people and for that reason they can victimize the Christians in this country,” he said. “There was a reason that Christ gave us the demonstration of righteous anger when he threw the money changers out of the temple. It gives us some license to throw these kinds of people out of the military.”

King said he’s been alarmed at a trend he’s seen to scrub Christianity from the military – most recently the decision to remove a cross from an Army chapel in northern Afghanistan because it violated Army regulations.
He placed the blame on the Obama Administration.

“This is Orwellian,” he said. “Who would have believed even two or five years ago that the Executive branch of government led by our Commander in Chief Barack Obama would produce some kind of document that would prohibit family members coming into our military hospitals

Klukwoski said he’s noticed a similar trend in what he called “anti-faith measures.”
“We are seeing a shocking level of hostility towards religious faith but beyond that – we’ve also seen a militantly secular attitude of trying to sterilize the defense department of all references to faith and references,” he said.

SOURCE: FOX NEWS

A MUST SEE VIDEO-The Debt Generation (VIDEO)

2011-12-01T23:38:00.003-06:00

This is their first YouTube video...please let them know how awesome it is!

In 2008, the youth vote was overwhelmingly for Obama and helped elect him to the White House. Now, three years into his presidency and one year from the most important election of our lives, college students are thinking twice before voting for Obama again. Watch in 1080p for the full experience.
Source: Tennessee College Republican Committee

PLEASE SHARE~

CEO Blasts Obama Over 'Class Warfare'

2011-12-01T23:32:00.000-06:00

By now, nearly everyone has seen the scathing letter investor Leon Cooperman sent to President Barack Obama earlier this week.

Cooperman, who's the founder of Omega Advisors, is well-known for his rags-to-riches, "American dream"-esque life story. His dad was a plumber in South Bronx, and he was educated in New York City's public school system. He went on to attend Columbia Business School, and worked for over 20 years at Goldman Sachs before leaving to start Omega. Currently, Forbes estimates his net worth at around $1.8 billion.

Yesterday, on CNBC, he jokingly admitted another step he was thinking about taking towards the American dream: running for president. Cooperman had tossed the idea around as a joke in an investor conference call three months ago.

He then shared his 9-point plan that would make up his presidential platform. (Looks like he's thought it through a lot!) And we actually found it a bit more erudite than other political platforms with the number 9 out there.

White House Underground Construction Fuels Speculation?

2011-11-30T12:45:00.001-06:00

You can't have a construction site open up on the White House compound without a conspiracy theory or two taking root.

Obama administration officials say that the underground construction work now under way concerns a simple a utilities upgrade. But the yawning pit opened up outside the West Wing earlier this month has prompted many overeager observers of the executive branch to speculate that the construction crew is actually laying the foundation for a bunker, the Washington Post's Christian Davenport reports.

The General Services Administration says the White House utilities upgrade project, begun in May 2009, involves routine maintenance upgrades--"replacing aging electrical, cooling, heating and fire alarm equipment," Davenport writes. But the public is skeptical of the official story--and, Davenport notes, "those who work in the White House aren't buying it, either."

"One told the New York Times that the work is 'security-related' and would ultimately create an expanded underground emergency operations center," Davenport writes.

Whatever the purpose of the project, it will soon fade into the background. Once the work is completed, a GSA spokesman explained to Davenport, "the grounds will be restored to their original state." Or, as Davenport adds: "In other words, it will be as if nothing happened."

You can see a photo gallery of the construction: Here

*****~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*****

Here's an additional article written April 4, 2011 by the Daily Mail-

Is a secret lair being built under the White House? West Wing vanishes behind a fence in $86 million ear-splitting project

The West Wing of the White House is all-but disappearing behind an $86 million building project that is going to last for years.

And a mysterious tunnel is being built, fuelling speculation that a secret underground lair is what's really under construction.

In recent weeks, an expanding and sometimes ear-splitting zone of excavation has enveloped the mansion's famous office wing.

Heavy equipment and metal-and-concrete superstructures are part of the vast construction project.

The front door and the Marine who guards it have disappeared behind a high green-and-white plywood fence. From Pennsylvania Avenue, all that's visible is a sliver of second-floor roof line.

For years to come, the front yard at 1600 Pennsylvania will remain a noisy building site, say officials in charge of the White House's 'Big Dig'.

Officials describe the job as an overdue upgrade of underground utilities. That includes water and sewer lines, electrical conduits, pipes for chilled and hot water and steam heat systems, and storm sewers. Heating, air conditioning and fire alarm systems are being replaced. Some systems are getting backups.

To build the tunnel, crews have poured in huge concrete pylons, put up retaining walls and brought in truckloads of steel beams.

The construction site has expanded from in front of the West Wing around to the side and across a parking lot to the next-door Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

The General Services Administration, which is supervising the work, has denied the tunnel is a new shelter - just an access to the utilities.

Spokesman Sahar Wali said the steel and concrete is needed 'to create enough space and a pathway for replacement of the new utilities infrastructure at the proper depth and location'.

She said the construction was not putting in place long-standing plans for underground office space or an underground driveway entrance.

Of course, there would not be much point in telling everyone about building a secret tunnel (after all, the emphasis is on secret).

West Wing officials, especially those with offices nearest the construction, have endured painful spells of drilling and banging. Holding meetings and doing routine business amid the din has become a major challenge.

Josh Earnest, a deputy in the press office, found himself doing phone interviews on President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech as a worker jackhammered concrete inches from his window. The next day, when a second jackhammer arrived, he phoned project managers to beg for a reprieve. The work was postponed.

"They have been very respectful of the fact that we still have to keep an important operation running here,' Mr Earnest said.

Visitors to the West Wing now must navigate a temporary walkway that curves behind Pebble Beach — as the zone where TV reporters do stand-ups is called — and arches over the digging before swinging out of view behind the construction fence.

Foreign leaders arriving by motorcade often have to use another entrance. Beyond the main West Wing driveway, the construction has shut down one entrance leading to the White House residence quarters that's used for deliveries of flowers, produce and other supplies.

That fencing has cost some of the most coveted offices in America their sweeping views.

Former press secretary Robert Gibbs said: 'I've threatened to go spray paint it and make it a little bit more aesthetically pleasing.'

For most of those who work in the White House complex, the noise is the worst part. In addition to the jackhammers and bulldozers, a heavy crane that drills large earthen cores is the biggest offender, shivering and clanking as it shakes off dirt after each bore. TV correspondents facing nearby cameras have to shout to be heard.

The noise won't be going away any time soon.

The West Wing dig is but the first step in a multiphase $376 million project that will eventually progress across the White House grounds — and last for a total of four years.

What lies beneath: The secret passageway, Armageddon-proof bunker (and basement bowling alley) under the President's feet

The White House already has a number of tunnels — the exact number is, of course, classified.

The most well known is the underground corridor that leads to the President's Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), a supposedly nuclear-proof bunker located six stories under the East Wing.

It was to this bunker and its adjacent Executive Briefing Room that Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, among others, directed Government operations on September 11, 2001.

Will Generation 'Gimme' Work For The American Dream? If We Had More Professors/Teachers Like Jack Chambless, They Would

2011-11-30T12:07:00.004-06:00

Each year Professor Chambless has his students write an essay at the first of the year on what the American Dream looks like to them.

This year, he asked the students to specifically write what they thought the federal government should do to help them realize their dream.

He took the essays from his 3 classes, approximately 180 students, and after reading through them, he was shocked at what these student believe about the role of the federal government.

He said about 10% want the government to leave them alone and allow them to control their own lives but an overwhelming 80% feel the government needs to provide for them.

Here's a list of what his students think the government should provide:

FREE TUITION AND HEALTH CARE
JOBS
MONEY FOR A HOUSE
MONEY FOR RETIREMENT
MONEY FOR ME (AFTER TAXING THE RICH PEOPLE)

(This essay was written before the OWS movement took hold.)

Here's an exerpt from one of the essays:

"As human beings, we are not really responsible for our own acts and so we need government to control those who don't care about other."

When asked where he thinks his students' "sense of entitlement" comes from, he said that "public schools are part of it." Then he was asked about an "experiment" he conducts in his classes, in which he pretends to be a "pickpocket" to show students it's "wrong" for "the government to plunder people."

Here is his response, "Well, yes. When I went back to class the next time to meet with them, I told them I read over their essays and I read some of the comments they had made. And then I sat them on a table, and I asked everybody to pull out their wallets and their purses. And I picked one student in each class, and when their wallet was in their hand, I grabbed their wallet out forcefully and in one case, I grabbed a girl's purse, and I rifled through her purse, pulled out her wallet, pulled out all of her cash. And I said that part of my American Dream was to have a cabin in northern Minnesota someday so I could have a nice retirement, and that this money was now going to help fund that American Dream. And of course, that set in motion explanation [sic] on why using the government to plunder people to support our American Dream is fundamentally, morally wrong, constitutionally wrong, and leads to a lot of economic -- economically bad events if we let that idea gain ground."

Source: Fox News
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thoughts on the World Around Us

Today's lesson: Dream, but not at government's expense (click here to watch Fox News interview on this issue)

The Orlando Sentinel, October 9, 2011 - to hear more about this article and the experiment it discusses you can listen to my radio interviews with Janine Turner and Brian Wilson.

On the first day of class this semester, I asked my students to spend 10 minutes writing a brief essay explaining their definition of the American Dream and what they expected the federal government to do to help them achieve their version of this dream.

The first part of all of their essays was pretty standard stuff. They wanted to have a good job, a home, a family and enough money to enjoy their lives for decades to come.

It was the second part of the majority of these essays (from a population of 180 students) that left me discouraged and bewildered.

When contemplating the role of Washington, D.C., in helping them achieve their goals in life, my students — most of whom were educated in America's public schools — wrote that they wanted government to "pay for my tuition," "provide me with a job," "give me money for a house," "make sure I get free health care," "pay for my retirement," "raise taxes on rich people so that I can have more money" and so forth.

One student who thought her American Dream could be best achieved with more government regulations went so far as to say, "We all know that there are many bad side effects when regulations take place, but as human beings, we are not really responsible for our own acts, and so we need government to control those who don't care about others. It makes sense that our freedom is reduced every day with the new regulations."

Recently, The Wall Street Journal reported that for the first time in our nation's history, 51 percent of Americans will not pay income taxes this year. It should also be noted that in 1983, just over 29 percent of Americans received some form of government assistance. Today the figure is 44.4 percent.

These figures are noteworthy and arguably linked to my students' concept of what the role of government should be in their lives.

After all, it makes intuitive sense that in a nation where fewer and fewer Americans are net contributors to our prosperity, the children of those who increasingly live off their fellow citizens would develop the perception that part, if not all, of the American Dream involves taking money away from a working, productive American in order to fill the financial gaps in our lives.

On the second day of class, I asked my students to pull out their purses and wallets. In each class, I approached one student, grabbed his wallet, opened it and took out all of the cash.

I then told the shocked student that part of my American Dream is to have a cabin on a lake in northern Minnesota someday so that I can enjoy my retirement in this beautiful part of the country.

My students listened to a mini-lecture on our Founding Fathers' view of our rights — especially as it pertains to the pursuit of happiness.

Many seemed to comprehend, perhaps for the first time, that all of us have every right to pursue access to high-quality health care, a good job, a home, cars, retirement and whatever else we might want to peacefully acquire, but that no one has an inherent right to use the arm of government to forcibly take the private property of another citizen in order to obtain our desires.

In effect, with every dollar we receive by force in order to gain our dream, we are diminishing, by one dollar, some other person's dream.

I hope they understood, and I hope I remembered to give those kids their money back.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UPDATE: Great News! One of Professor Chambless' students comes forward to say that he has reassessed his position and has changed his mind and realizes people should be responsible for their own American dream.

Should Taxpayers Fund American Dream?

Robert Newton is one of Professor Chambless' students that originally had felt that the government should provide for American's but after listening to the Professor, he has changed his mind.

BIOGRAPHY

Jack A. Chambless is a professor of economics and professional speaker. He has taught since 1991 at Valencia College in Orlando, Florida where he served as the the Patricia Whalen Chair in Social Science in 1999 and 2004. In addition to teaching Principles of Micro and Macroeconomics he has also taught honors courses in economics, two online courses and special topics courses entitled "Applied Microeconomics" and "Oil, Economics and Terrorism."

He is a frequent contributor to The Orlando Sentinel and has had his work published in The Wall Street Journal, The University of Miami Law Review, The Public Utilities Fortnightly, Structural Movers, Orlando Magazine and many other domestic publications. His work has been cited in The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, U.S. News & World Report, Reason Magazine, The Foreign Press Review, The Atlanta Journal & Constitution, The Detroit News, The British Caledonian Press and many other foreign and domestic publications.

In addition to teaching, Professor Chambless speaks frequently around the United States on the Economics of Liberty. He has lectured at The Foundation for Economic Education in New York; The Young America's Foundation Freedom Fest in Las Vegas; The Florida Libertarian Convention, The Florida Parent Educators Association convention and Georgia State University and has appeared on national television and radio broadcasts including CNBC's Inside Opinion, FoxNews Europe and Your World with Neal Cavuto (FoxNews), The Neal Boortz Show, the BBC, National Public Radio and The Jim Hightower Show. He is also currently serving as a policy advisor for The Heartland Institute - a think tank in Chicago, Illinois.

He is the author of two economics textbooks - An Applied Approach to Microeconomics and An

Applied Approach to Macroeconomics, both published by Kendall Hunt.

Professor Chambless enjoys hiking in the Northwestern United States, Minnesota and Canada, bass fishing and photography in his spare time.

UPDATE:

Move over, Fox and MSNBC: Two Professors to Debate on Thursday

Monday, November 28, 2011

By Linda Shrieves Beaty

Who needs to watch talking heads debate politics on MSNBC or Fox News when Valencia has its own in-house political pundits?

Join Valencia students, faculty and staff on Thursday, Dec. 1, to watch “A Conversation Between Two Liberals,” a debate between Valencia professors John Scolaro and Jack Chambless. The debate will take place from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. in the Special Events Center of Building 8 on West Campus.

Scolaro, who is a liberal by today’s standards, and Chambless, who describes himself as “a liberal in the classical sense,” rarely agree on politics. Both are avid writers and contributors to the Orlando Sentinel’s op-ed pages. “There are very, very few things that he and I have agreed upon over the years,” Chambless says.

At Thursday’s debate, Scolaro, who teaches humanities, and Chambless, who teaches economics, will tackle ideological questions of the day, including these:

Is Barack Obama’s presidency a failure?
Do the Occupy Wall Street protesters have a good point? Are their objectives commendable or condemnable?
Should the United States become more like Europe?
Is there a bias against women in society today and, if not, why have so few women been elected to public office?

The goal, say both professors, is to engage public debate — and inspire their students, friends and faculty members to think about the larger issues facing the nation.

“My hope is that attendees will be inspired to deepen their understanding of the ‘hot issues’ of the day — on both a national and international level — and will embrace the view that being informed is an important aspect of citizenship in a democracy,” Scolaro says.

The debate will be moderated by Valencia political science professor Desmond Duncan. Seating is available for about 300 guests, but the event will also be videotaped and will be posted on Chambless’s website (www.jackchambless.com) after the event.

Absentee Ballot Fraud Could Derail Obama In 2012

2011-11-30T00:20:00.000-06:00

Rampant absentee ballot fraud is destroying democracy in Miami and across the United States. County Commissioner Rebeca Sosa has proposed that anyone caught messing with absentee ballots will go to jail for 60 days and pay a $1,000 fine. Ten of her colleagues agree on the plan, which will be voted on this month. Sosa is also urging the state legislature to charge anyone who collects absentee ballots with a felony.

Why do we need such a plan? The Miami-Dade ethics commission just concluded that three North Miami Beach residents' votes were stolen via the absentee ballot process.But more and more, absentee ballot brokers are the key to every election.

No sitting politician will reform the system, especially with the 2012 presidential election on the horizon. Absentee ballots in Miami-Dade may well elect the next president. There's a county mayoral race next year too.

Consider this: In the most recent elections in Miami and Hialeah, absentee ballots either tied or outnumbered ballots cast on Election Day.On his way to victory, Miami city Commissioner Willy Gort collected 2,228 absentee ballots, nearly double the 1,245 he received on Election Day this past November 2. His colleague, Marc Sarnoff, had almost the same number of absentee ballots (2,289) as votes cast at the polls (2,322).

In the Hialeah mayoral race's first round, absentee ballots outnumbered voters on Election Day by 2,023. In the runoff, winner Carlos Hernandez had 730 more absentee ballots than Election Day votes. His absentee ballots outpaced those of his opponent -- longtime Hialeah king Raul Martinez -- by 4,000.

The only way to get that many absentee ballots is by hiring brokers who charge candidates thousands of dollars to deliver bundles to the county elections department. The brokers are the ones responsible for dead people voting in the '80s and '90s. Now they go around strong-arming the elderly residents at assisted living facilities or fooling them with free breakfast at the local IHOP. The brokers also pay off preachers so they can set up shop inside houses of worship to sign up absentee voters.

I saw it firsthand when I ran in the recent county mayoral race. One guy, who I won't name, guaranteed he could deliver thousands of absentee ballots in North Miami and North Miami Beach for $3,000. I took a pass. It showed on Election Day. I had more early and Election Day ballots than absentee votes.

I don't believe our forefathers intended voting by absentee to be sold to the highest bidder. But that's the way it is.

Source: http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2011/11/absentee_ballot_fraud_could_de.php

12 Charged With Absentee Ballot Fraud In Georgia Election

Law enforcement officials have charged 12 people with using absentee ballots to skew an election in Georgia.

“As a result of their grand jury findings, 12 individuals were indicted in that particular matter and we will be trying that case in a court of judicial law instead of a court of public opinion,” District Attorney Joe Mulholland told the local TV station, WALB.

The charges followed a bitter November 2010 school board election in Brooks County in which the final tally was changed by an unusually large wave of absentee ballots.

During the election, 1,060 absentee votes were cast out of the 1,403 ballots mailed out to people who requested them, according to a July 2010 report by WCTV.

That’s far higher than nearby Thomas County, which had 119 absentee votes cast out of 202 requests, and Lowndes County, which had 169 absentee votes cast out of 439 requests, said WCTV’s report.

The 12 people charged are aligned with the Democratic Party.

News of the arrests followed The Daily Caller’s interview with former Alabama Democratic Rep. Artur Davis, in which he said voter identification laws are needed to counter ballot fraud in local elections.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/24/12-charged-with-voter-fraud-in-georgia-election/#ixzz1fAMyMASX

Fundamental Restoration (Video)

2011-11-29T09:21:00.000-06:00

Fundamental Restoration from Genxpolitics on Vimeo.

Elections have consequences. The consequences of disregarding the will of the American people will be on full display next November.

Christie Tears Into Obama: 'What the Hell Are We Paying You for?'

2011-11-29T07:53:00.000-06:00

Here is video of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie blasting President Barack Obama for his failure to lead out in getting a Debt-reduction agreement, instead choosing to be a “bystander.”

Christie said he was “angry this weekend” listening to the “spin” coming from Obama surrogates as to why Obama did not get involved in the Congressional Super Committee efforts to craft a debt agreement. Christie asked bluntly of Obama, “What the hell are we paying you for?”

Source: Fox Nation

Overruled: Government Invasion of your Parental Rights (Official Movie)

2011-11-27T21:09:00.001-06:00

Overruled: Government Invasion of your Parental Rights (Official Movie)

Parents all over America are losing their rights and don't even know it. Featuring 3 reenactments based on real cases, "Overruled" is a shocking 35-minute docudrama that exposes how the rights of parents in America are being eroded and what you can do to turn the tide.
Learn more at www.ParentalRights.org

Source: Overruled: Government Invasion of your Parental Rights (Official Movie)

Sign the Petition

Yes, I believe that parental rights should be constitutionally protected through the proposed Parental Rights Amendment:

SECTION 1
The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a
fundamental right.

SECTION 2
Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without
demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest
order and not otherwise served.

SECTION 3
No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to
supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

Sign the Petition

Status of the Resolution to Prevent CRC Ratification

Not Photoshopped: Beam of Light Shines on Fallen Soldier’s Miracle Dog

2011-11-25T20:52:00.000-06:00

This is a very heartwarming and inspiring story. God Bless our military and their families. We will be forever indebted to them for all of their sacrifices.

Not Photoshopped: Beam of Light Shines on Fallen Soldier’s Miracle Dog


(Kimberly Launier/ABC News)

It was an overcast day in Newport, N.H., when a simple “20/20″ shoot turned into something that made me wonder about life after death.

I was filming soldier Justin Rollin’s parents Skip and Rhonda playing with their dog Hero, whose rescue from the Iraq War zone where Justin died was nothing short of a miracle.

Sometimes when Rhonda hugged Hero she would softly pet her face and coo, “Justin, are you in there?” It was Rhonda’s gentle way of remembering their son and his last living connection to Hero. At one point, Hero wandered off and took a stroll in the backyard. All of a sudden, the clouds broke and a light began to solidify in a beam directly down on Hero — a kind of vertical halo.

As this dramatic ray of light was shining on Hero she turned to look at me, and it was all I could do to hold the camera steady and not drop it in astonishment. It was an unforgettable moment, and made me wonder if in fact Justin was in there. Then the light vanished.

I couldn’t wait to check my camera’s playback to see if it caught the stunning beam. When I saw that it did, I was so happy that I burst out dancing. It was a great moment to share with Justin’s parents. We all laughed together, and wondered if perhaps this had been a sign from Justin.

Watch the full story Friday on “20/20″ at 10 p.m. ET and read more about Hero and Justin here.

Bringing Hero Home: Soldier's Puppy Gives Hope to Grieving Family

video platform video management video solutions video player

Don't let the sweet face fool you.

The dog with a big grin and eye patches of chocolate fur may have one of the most incredible tales you'll hear this Thanksgiving. It is the stuff of legends.

Her story begins in a faraway land, but the story of the man who saved her starts in the small town of Newport, New Hampshire, where leaves burn up the sky in the colors of rubies and fire. And "Live Free or Die" is more than a saying.

Justin Rollins became a soldier when he found courage in war. He became a man when he found strength in love. And his family found its destiny when they realized faith doesn't have to end -- even when a life does.

Brittney Murray remembers the first time she saw Justin Rollins in an economics class.

"It's this gaze, and when he looks back at you, you kind of get sucked in."

It was love at first sight, but Justin was a high school senior, Brittney, a freshman.

"Mom and dad didn't like that much," Brittney said of their age difference.

Read more

Mark Levin Show: Neurosurgeon Says Death Panels Will Be A Reality With Obamacare

2011-11-25T19:59:00.001-06:00

Mark Levin Show: Neurosurgeon Says Death Panels Will Be A Reality With Obamacare

A neurosurgeon, vetted by Levin's staff, calls Mark and talks about what he knows about Obamacare Death Panels. From 11/22/11.

Mark Levin received a phone call Tuesday night from a brain surgeon who had just been to Washington DC, learning about the requirements the government has in place with the Obama Health Care Plan. This is a must read. The surgeon says that if you are over 70, you will get “comfort care,” and that surgery can be performed “if” the government panel deems it necessary. It also reveals that the government language used to describe patients is “units.”

If you are over 70 and have a stroke, you can and will be denied surgery. The documents referred to by the caller are not public yet.

For a transcript: Mark Levin Fan

WHAT IF TREES COULD SUE? THE LEFT'S ATTACK ON CORPORATIONS AND CAPITALISM

2011-11-22T20:24:00.005-06:00

HOW THE LEFT IS GOING AFTER CORPORATIONS, CAPITALISM AND ENERGY PRODUCTION UNDER THE GUISE OF GRANTING 'EQUAL RIGHTS TO NATURE'

The left-wing organizations working on the erosion of our property rights in the United States have been actively pushing their agenda in North and South America.

If someone asked you, "What if trees could sue because their rights are being violated?" What would you have thought or said? After the initial, 'yeah right,' I imagine you would have thought this was just a silly joke.

Well, this is a reality. We are seeing our country taken over by the UN Agenda 21 that has embedded itself throughout the country under the guise of 'sustainable growth.' In fact, what it will do to your local governments is hand over controls of your rights to an unelected group of 'councils of governments' that will dictate land, water, and energy usage in your area.

Not that long ago, I thought this was just a conspiracy. Today, I realize it is a reality and am actually finding this cancer in my own back yard. Our city has signed up for this garbage. I don't know if they understand what they are doing and are blindly going along or if they are oblivious as I was and don't understand. Either way, our local Tea Party has been very active in bringing it to our local governments attention but it seems to be falling on deaf ears.

We need to make more people aware so we have more standing in front of these facilitators of the destruction of our liberties. I will be posting some information and videos about Agenda 21 and would encourage you to educate yourself and check your area to see if your local government has joined hands with this anti-American, unconstitutional, U.N. agenda.

For now, I want to focus on the issue of the left's movement to grant nature constitutional rights.

What is this movement?

To understand what they are pushing, let's look at a failed attempt to pass The 'Community Bill of Rights' in 2009 in Spokane Washington. This would have required a change to their constitution.
The following is taken from an article from Yes! Magazine Nov. 4, 2009.

A Community Bill of Rights:

'In the spring of 2008, grassroots organizations, labor unions, neighborhood councils, and other groups across the city began meeting together as part of a coalition they called Envision Spokane. Over the spring and summer, they drafted a series of ideas for addressing the needs of residents, workers, neighborhoods, and the environment. These ideas formed a draft “Community Bill of Rights” for the city.

During the winter, Envision Spokane held a series of 12 Town Halls across the city to engage the community in a conversation about the proposed Bill of Rights.

Taking the community’s feedback, the board of Envision Spokane revised the Bill of Rights and, in March of 2009, began to collect signatures. Despite opposition from the Spokane City Council and a concerted effort by business interests to block the Bill of Rights from reaching the ballot, Envision Spokane collected over 5,000 signatures from voters, successfully qualifying the Community Bill of Rights for the November ballot.

The Community Bill of Rights proposed nine amendments, written to address some very real needs in Spokane, to the city's Home Rule Charter. By recognizing broad rights instead of proposing specific legislation, the amendments were written to change the fundamental structure of Spokane’s legal system so that it would prioritize the protection of the local environment, economy, neighborhoods and residents.
First. Residents have the right to a locally-based economy. Recognizes the rights of residents to protect their local economy by denying permits to big-box and chain stores.
Second. Residents have the right to affordable preventive health care. Creates a fee-for-service program for the thousands of Spokane residents who lack health insurance and currently rely on the emergency room for health care.
Third. Residents have the right to affordable housing. In response to the loss of thousands of units of affordable housing in Spokane over the past few years, the city would have been obliged, through incentives or other measures, to ensure that an adequate supply of affordable housing is available for those most in need.
Fourth. Residents have the right to affordable and renewable energy. Requires the city and local utilities to make renewable energy accessible to residents.
Fifth. The natural environment has the right to exist and flourish. Under current law, nature has no legal standing—to prove environmental damage, a person has to prove that he or she has been harmed. The Fifth Amendment would have protected the Spokane River, one of the most polluted in the nation following years of mining and toxic dumping, would have been protected under the Bill of Rights.
Sixth. Residents have the right to determine the future of their neighborhoods. Patty Norton and her neighbors—and other residents of Spokane—would have been able to enforce their decisions about what’s best for them. (The condominium complex hasn’t been built yet, but it is approved. The Sixth Amendment would have done what years of protesting haven’t been able to: allow the residents to say, “No.”)
Seventh. Workers have the right to be paid the prevailing wage and to work as apprentices on certain construction projects. As skilled labor leaves Spokane, the Bill of Rights would have protected workers’ right to competitive wages and created apprenticeship opportunities so that young people could learn a trade and stay in the city.
Eighth. Workers have the right to employer neutrality when unionizing, and the right to constitutional protections within the workplace. Workers would have been free from interference by employers when seeking to form a labor union, as well as from having to attend “captive audience” meetings.
Ninth. Residents, workers, neighborhoods, neighborhood councils, and the city of Spokane shall have the right to enforce the Community Bill of Rights. For the first time, residents would have the legal authority to enforce their own decisions.
While Spokane is the largest city to attempt these legal changes, and the first whose adoption would have meant a change to a city constitution, other communities have already succeeded in securing similar rights. Towns in Maine, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Virginia have passed ordinances recognizing the rights of nature, prohibiting corporate mining and water extraction, and stripping corporations of constitutional protections and the right to contribute to political campaigns.'

The board of directors of Envision Spokane recognizes that fundamental change doesn’t come easily or quickly, and will be meeting in the next few weeks to discuss how to continue the work that they’ve started. Other communities are now reaching out to learn from Spokane about how they might do something similar.

SOURCE: YES MAGAZINE

EXCUSE ME? WHAT DOES A CORPORATIONS CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS OR CONTRIBUTING TO A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN HAVE TO DO WITH THIS? OBVIOUSLY, THE AGENDA IS NOT PROTECTING ANYTHING AT ALL. IT'S ALL ABOUT TRYING TO DESTROY CORPORATIONS AND CAPITALISM. IT'S ALSO ABOUT DESTROYING OUR ENERGY PRODUCTION.

*****~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*****

Now fast forward to today. Chalk one up as a win for this insane movement to grant nature rights that would surpass human rights.

This is a real and present danger to our property and personal liberties that we need to be aware of in order to understand it when it comes to our area.

It may be masked as "community bill of rights" or sustainability or even saving our planet, but it will really be an attack on our liberties.

This movement is ultimately an attack on corporations and capitalism. The parties behind this are well-known Communists, Marxists and Socialists...or better known as Progressives. Recently there were elections in our area that had to do with water conservation....it did not pass because we knew it was not TRULY for the betterment of our city...it was more of a power grab that we were able to thwart...for now.

BOLIVIA AND ECUADOR GRANT EQUAL RIGHTS TO NATURE: IS 'WILD LAW' A CLIMATE SOLUTION?

Published: Monday 21 November 2011
“Bolivians hope that this will give their country the power to hold mining companies accountable and force them to adhere to stricter environmental standards.”

The concept of “a wild law,” which grants equal rights to nature, is based on the idea that humans do not have an explicit right to destroy our natural environment. Under wild law, natural ecosystems’ rights supersede the interests of any one species (including humans). Obviously, this idea can be incredibly controversial. Even in Bolivia, where they’ve amended their constitution to give nature equal rights to people, they are still working out the details.

Bolivia amended its constitution after pressure from its large indigenous population who places the environment and the earth deity, Pachamama, at the center of all life. But what this means in practical terms, such as how to address the serious environmental problems caused by mining for raw materials in the Andean nation, is yet to be determined. Bolivians hope that this will give their country the power to hold mining companies accountable and force them to adhere to stricter environmental standards.

Research by glaciologist Edson Ramirez of San Andres University in the capital city, La Paz, suggests temperatures have been rising steadily for 60 years and started to accelerate in 1979. They are now on course to rise a further 3.5-4C over the next 100 years. This would turn much of Bolivia into a desert.

Most glaciers below 5,000m are expected to disappear completely within 20 years, leaving Bolivia with a much smaller ice cap. Scientists say this will lead to a crisis in farming and water shortages in cities such as La Paz and El Alto.

Ecuador, which has a large indigenous population, has also amended its constitution to grant rights to nature. But like in Bolivia, the law has not stopped oil companies from destroying their natural landscape.

Even though these laws are mostly abstract, their existence helps elevate a debate about the relationship between people and nature. Bolivia’s Foreign Minister, David Choquehuanca, puts it well:

“Our grandparents taught us that we belong to a big family of plants and animals. We believe that everything in the planet forms part of a big family. We indigenous people can contribute to solving the energy, climate, food and financial crises with our values.”

It’s hard to imagine such laws adopted en masse today — particularly in the U.S. But the concept has gained traction. In recent years, numerous conferences have been held on how to apply wild law to climate change mitigation efforts.

To hear more about the concept, watch the video below featuring Cormac Cullinan, an environmental lawyer and leading wild law intellectual, who recently addressed the World People’s Summit on Climate Change in Bolivia.

Wild Law - Cormac Cullinan speaks at the World People's Summit on Climate Change (Bolivia)

Environmental lawyer, Cormac Cullinan speaks at the World People's Summit on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth in Cochabamba, Bolivia. The only way we can continue to live on this planet, Cullinan suggests, is by re-educating ourselves about our natural environment.

SOURCE: NATION OF CHANGE

*****~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*****

Bolivia Grants Nature Historic "Bill of Rights"

Bolivia is set to pass the world's first laws granting all nature equal rights to humans. The Law of Mother Earth, now agreed on by politicians and grassroots social groups, redefines the country's rich mineral deposits as "blessings" and is expected to lead to radical new conservation and social measures to reduce pollution and control industry.

Read the full story here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/10/bolivia-enshrines-natural-w...

*****~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*****

Well, take a look behind the curtain and you will find the ususal suspects involved in this eco terrorist scam.

Former Obama Czar Van Jones Behind UN Push to Grant Mother Nature Same Rights as Humans…

By George Russell

Published April 25, 2011

FoxNews.com

Van Jones, the Obama administration's controversial former "green jobs czar," has found a new calling: helping to push for a new, global architecture of environmental law that would give Mother Nature the same rights status as humans.

The new movement is almost certain to be showcased at a U.N.-sponsored global summit on “sustainable development” to take place in Rio de Janeiro in May 2012, when similar issues of “global environmental governance” are a major focus of attention.

Jones is taking up the challenge as one of the newest board members of an obscure San Francisco New Age-style organization known as the Pachamama Alliance, which has been creating a global movement to make human rights for Mother Nature an international reality — complete with enforceable laws — by 2014. The Rio summit will create an important midpoint for that campaign.

Jones joined the alliance's board last December, shortly after the organization announced creation of the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature to carry the concept around the world—and install it not only in international law but in the statutes of communities and municipalities across the U.S.

He resigned from the administration in September 2009 after making public apologies for some of his past actions, including the signing of a 2004 petition that questioned whether the Bush administration had deliberately allowed the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to happen, and his previous affiliation with a self-described communist organization, the Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM).

The Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature “is working to build a movement of millions of educated and inspired individuals, with thousands of successful cases of enforceable Rights of Nature legislation having been enacted at local and national levels, by the end of 2014,” according to the Pachamama website.

The group also is running a parallel media campaign, called "Four Years. Go.," to build enthusiasm for the same rapid environmental change, using “personal communication, social media and a rich web presence to inspire a movement of people who recognize the urgency, and the opportunity, of this time and stand for using the next four years, through 2014, to literally change the course of history.”

Organizing and advocating just such a radical “green” restructuring of the U.S. economy is the skill set that brought Jones to the Obama White House staff as a “green jobs czar” in the first place.

Jones has continued to advocate those ideas since leaving the administration, as a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a think tank closely associated with financier George Soros, and at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson Center for International Affairs.

Now, his green community organizing skills apparently are going global, along with the Pachamama Alliance’s rights-for-nature campaign. Telephone calls and emails to Jones, his assistant and the institutions where he now works as a fellow, as well as to the San Francisco offices of the Pachamama Alliance, had not been returned before this article was published.

The movement that Jones has joined shares its goals with some of the more radical governments represented at the United Nations, notably Ecuador and Bolivia, both nations with substantial territories in the Amazon Basin, and both with close ties to the socialist government of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez.

Bolivia last week sponsored an “interactive dialogue” on “Harmony With Nature” at the United Nations that included promotion of the same notion of a Universal Declaration of Human Rights for Mother Nature. By no coincidence, the U.N. debate was scheduled immediately prior to this year’s April 22 Earth Day celebrations—renamed “Mother Earth Day,” at the United Nations.

This year, the global celebrations also start an unofficial countdown to the U.N.-sponsored global summit in Rio de Janeiro next year.

The summit, known in U.N. shorthand as Rio + 20, is intended as a 20th anniversary successor to the famous Earth Summit of 1992, which gave enormous stimulus and legitimacy to the global environmental movement. This time, its aim is to produce new efforts at “global environmental governance,” meaning a strengthened international regulatory framework for environmental issues, and to provide new momentum for a global “green economy.”

Next year’s summit may also offer the “Rights of Nature” movement a chance to unveil at least a draft version of such a universal declaration, a prospect welcomed by the Bolivian sponsors of the April 20 debate at the U.N.

“Rio + 20 is a good opportunity to have that step forward,” said Pablo Salon, Bolivia’s ambassador to the U.N. “It would be like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

Salon sees such a declaration as the kickoff to a longer-term campaign to create legislative reinforcing the new Nature rights, and he noted in an interview with Fox News that the Bolivian government asserts it is the first country to give the rights of nature equal status with human rights in its legal system. Bolivian President Evo Morales has frequently said that “the central enemy of Mother Earth is capitalism.”

Salon also told Fox News that his country is working with an offshoot of the Pachamama Alliance, known as the Pachamama Foundation, on its nature rights campaign, but emphasized that the Pachamama group is “one of many networks” Bolivia is working with on the issue.

Among other things, the Pachamama Alliance claims that through the Pachamama Foundation—a “sister organization” it created in 1997 among native peoples of the Amazon Basin -- it was instrumental in helping to install the same “fundamental rights for nature” it espouses into the constitution of Ecuador in 2008.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/25/obama-adviser-van-jones-helping-push-rights-mother-nature/#ixzz1eTOwqNpO

*****~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*****

Communities Take Power

The Citizens of Barnstead, New Hampshire, Used Local Law to Keep Corporate Giants Out of Their Water

by Doug Pibel

posted Jul 29, 2007

The environmental movement, with its army of professional advocates, lawyers, grassroots campaigners, and dedicated funders, has been around for decades. Yet nearly every biological indicator shows a planet in crisis—and poised to unravel faster as climate change disrupts already-shaky ecosystem functions.

Mari Margil, associate director of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) believes it's time for different tactics. The nonprofit agency used to work within the body of existing environmental law—helping impacted residents file lawsuits or appeal corporate permits—to protect communities from environmental damage. But a series of blocked efforts, often made worse by the very agencies meant to protect the environment, convinced the group that more fundamental changes were necessary.

"Our system of environmental laws and regulations don't actually protect the environment," says CLEDF's Mari Margil. "At best, they merely slow the rate of its destruction ... We weren't helping anyone protect anything."

The organization has since changed its goals, working with citizens from all over North and South America to literally rewrite local laws in ways that allow people to speak up for their communities, watersheds, forests, and air.

According to Margil, anemic environmental laws spring from the fact that nature has no constitutional rights. CLEDF has taken a local approach to reversing this structural blind spot, drafting ordinances for townships from New England to Pennsylvania to Washington State that:

Give communities legal authority to say "No" to unwanted corporate activities;
Recognize the rights of nature;
Strip corporations of their constitutional rights.

In one landmark victory, the town of Barnstead, New Hampshire, voted 135 to 1 to ban the privatization of their freshwater by encroaching corporate interests—the first community in the nation to do so. Other towns have followed, stripping corporations of the rights of personhood and recognizing the rights of communities to self-govern. In 2008, with legal advice from CELDF, Ecuador recognized the right of nature to exist and persist in its national constitution.

PART 1

PART2

PART 3

This video was produced by Bioneers, a nonprofit organization that provides a forum and hub for social and scientific innovators.

Related Stories:

U.N. Will Spend Wednesday Debating Whether “Mother Earth” Deserves Human Rights Status…
Tree Huggers Rejoice! UN Treaty Will Give “Mother Earth” Same Rights as Humans…
The Obama File-Cass Sunstein
Giving Nature Its Constitutional Rights
What if Trees Could Sue?

RELATED LINKS:
GIVING NATURE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS???
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND BLOG
PLANETIZEN
DRAFTING NATURE'S CONSTITUTION
BIONEERS

IS THERE A CONNECTION BETWEEN OUTING OF CIA AGENTS IN IRAN AND LEBANON AND PANETTA LEAVING CIA IN JULY?

2011-11-21T14:46:00.000-06:00

Let's see....when did they remove Panetta as head of the CIA and put Gen Petraeus in charge of the CIA?????? 'Defense Secretary Robert Gates will retire on June 30 with Panetta taking over in July. Gates told senior staff that he recommended Panetta as his replacement six months ago.'
So Panetta knew he was leaving the end of June and the leader of Hezbollah announces in June they have rooted out at least two CIA spies?

Does anyone think it is a LITTLE FRIGGIN' coincidental that right before he is about to leave, they announce they rooted out at least 2 CIA spies? I swear guys, I think they were outed by Panetta and he got out just in time and would leave General Patreus to clean up this disaster!

What do you think? It was announced April 27th and Panetta was to officially leave July 1st.

CIA Spy Ranks Reportedly Busted in Iran, Lebanon

Published November 21, 2011

| Associated Press

The CIA's operations in Lebanon have been badly damaged after Hezbollah identified and captured a number of U.S. spies recently, current and former U.S. officials told The Associated Press. The intelligence debacle is particularly troubling because the CIA saw it coming.

Hezbollah's longtime leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, boasted on television in June that he had rooted out at least two CIA spies who had infiltrated the ranks of Hezbollah, which the U.S. considers a terrorist group closely allied with Iran. Though the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon officially denied the accusation, current and former officials concede that it happened and the damage has spread even further.

In recent months, CIA officials have secretly been scrambling to protect their remaining spies -- foreign assets or agents working for the agency -- before Hezbollah can find them.

To be sure, some deaths are to be expected in shadowy spy wars. It's an extremely risky business and people get killed. But the damage to the agency's spy network in Lebanon has been greater than usual, several former and current U.S. officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about security matters.

The Lebanon crisis is the latest mishap involving CIA counterintelligence, the undermining or manipulating of the enemy's ability to gather information. Former CIA officials have said that once-essential skill has been eroded as the agency shifted from outmaneuvering rival spy agencies to fighting terrorists. In the rush for immediate results, former officers say, tradecraft has suffered.

The most recent high-profile example was the suicide bomber who posed as an informant and killed seven CIA employees and wounded six others in Khost, Afghanistan in December 2009.

Last year, then-CIA director Leon Panetta said the agency had to maintain "a greater awareness of counterintelligence." But eight months later, Nasrallah let the world know he had bested the CIA, demonstrating that the agency still struggles with this critical aspect of spying and sending a message to those who would betray Hezbollah.

The CIA was well aware the spies were vulnerable in Lebanon. CIA officials were warned, including the chief of the unit that supervises Hezbollah operations from CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., and the head of counterintelligence. It remains unclear whether anyone has been or will be held accountable in the wake of this counterintelligence disaster or whether the incident will affect the CIA's ability to recruit assets in Lebanon.

In response to AP's questions about what happened in Lebanon, a U.S. official said Hezbollah is recognized as a complicated enemy responsible for killing more Americans than any other terrorist group before September 2001. The agency does not underestimate the organization, the official said.

The CIA's toughest adversaries, like Hezbollah and Iran, have for years been improving their ability to hunt spies, relying on patience and guile to exploit counterintelligence holes.

In 2007, for instance, when Ali-Reza Asgari, a brigadier general in the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps of Iran, disappeared in Turkey, it was assumed that he was either killed or defected. In response, the Iranian government began a painstaking review of foreign travel by its citizens, particularly to places like Turkey where Iranians don't need a visa and could meet with foreign intelligence services.

It didn't take long, a Western intelligence official told the AP, before the U.S., Britain and Israel began losing contact with some of their Iranian spies.

The State Department last year described Hezbollah as "the most technically capable terrorist group in the world," and the Defense Department estimates it receives between $100 million and $200 million per year in funding from Iran.

Backed by Iran, Hezbollah has built a professional counterintelligence apparatus that Nasrallah -- whom the U.S. government designated an international terrorist a decade ago -- proudly describes as the "spy combat unit." U.S. intelligence officials believe the unit, which is considered formidable and ruthless, went operational in about 2004.

Using the latest commercial software, Nasrallah's spy-hunters unit began methodically searching for spies in Hezbollah's midst. To find them, U.S. officials said, Hezbollah examined cellphone data looking for anomalies. The analysis identified cellphones that, for instance, were used rarely or always from specific locations and only for a short period of time. Then it came down to old-fashioned, shoe-leather detective work: Who in that area had information that might be worth selling to the enemy?

The effort took years but eventually Hezbollah, and later the Lebanese government, began making arrests. By one estimate, 100 Israeli assets were apprehended as the news made headlines across the region in 2009. Some of those suspected Israeli spies worked for telecommunications companies and served in the military.

Back at CIA headquarters, the arrests alarmed senior officials. The agency prepared a study on its own vulnerabilities, U.S. officials said, and the results proved to be prescient.

The analysis concluded that the CIA was susceptible to the same analysis that had compromised the Israelis, the officials said.

CIA managers were instructed to be extra careful about handling sources in Lebanon. A U.S. official said recommendations were issued to counter the potential problem.

But it's unclear what preventive measures were taken by the Hezbollah unit chief or the officer in charge of the Beirut station. Former officials say the Hezbollah unit chief is no stranger to the necessity of counterintelligence and knew the risks. The unit chief has worked overseas in hostile environments like Afghanistan and played an important role in the capture of a top terrorist while stationed in the Persian Gulf region after the attacks of 9/11.

"We've lost a lot of people in Beirut over the years, so everyone should know the drill," said a former Middle East case officer familiar with the situation.

But whatever actions the CIA took, they were not enough. Like the Israelis, bad tradecraft doomed these CIA assets and the agency ultimately failed to protect them, an official said. In some instances, CIA officers fell into predictable patterns when meeting their sources, the official said.

This allowed Hezbollah to identify assets and case officers and unravel at least part of the CIA's spy network in Lebanon. There was also a reluctance to share cases and some files were put in "restricted handling." The designation severely limits the number of people who know the identity of the source but also reduces the number of experts who could spot problems that might lead to their discovery, officials said.

Nasrallah's televised announcement in June was followed by finger-pointing among departments inside the CIA as the spy agency tried figure out what went wrong and contain the damage.

The fate of these CIA assets is unknown. Hezbollah treats spies differently, said Matthew Levitt, a counterterrorism and intelligence expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Studies who's writing a book about the terrorist organization

"It all depends on who these guys were and what they have to say," Levitt said. "Hezbollah has disappeared people before. Others they have kept around."

Who's responsible for the mess in Lebanon? It's not clear. The chief of Hezbollah operations at CIA headquarters continues to run the unit that also focuses on Iranians and Palestinians. The CIA's top counterintelligence officer, who was one of the most senior women in the clandestine service, recently retired after approximately five years in the job. She is credited with some important cases, including the recent arrests of Russian spies who had been living in the U.S. for years.

Officials said the woman was succeeded by a more experienced operations officer. That officer has held important posts in Moscow, Southeast Asia, Europe and the Balkans, important frontlines of the agency's spy wars with foreign intelligence services and terrorist organizations.

*****~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*****

America's Survival - Leon Panetta Security Risk ?

Topic: Cliff Kincaid has startling information that he and Trevor Loudon have uncovered revealing that Obama's CIA Director and Sec. Of Defense designate Leon Panetta has a long history of association with communists agents and revolutionary regimes.

http://www.usasurvival.org

http://www.aim.org

Related Links: Leon Panetta Is A Security Risk

Leon Panetta, High Security Risk? Communist Sympathizer?

*****~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*****

Obama sending Panetta to Pentagon,

Petraeus to CIA

APNews

Apr 27, 2011

President Barack Obama plans to name CIA Director Leon Panetta as the next secretary of defense and move Gen. David Petraeus, now running the war in Afghanistan, into the CIA chief's job in a major shuffle of the U.S. national security leadership, senior administration officials and other sources said Wednesday.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates will retire on June 30 with Panetta taking over in July. Gates told senior staff that he recommended Panetta as his replacement six months ago.

Gates described his plans ahead of a White House announcement, expected Thursday, that Panetta would be the president's choice to replace Gates.

Petraeus' move to the CIA is not expected until early fall, after he wraps up his term as Afghan commander over the summer, officials said.

The four-star general also agreed to retire from the military before taking the position, in a meeting with President Barack Obama to discuss the move in mid-March, administration officials said.
The CIA would probably be led by a deputy over the summer.

All sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the changes hadn't been announced by the president.

The officials said Obama would name Lt. Gen. John Allen to replace Petraeus as Afghanistan commander, and diplomat Ryan Crocker to be the next U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan. With the turnover slated for September, that gives the administration several months to get Petraeus, Allen and Crocker confirmed by the Senate for their new positions.

Allen, now the deputy commander of U.S. Central Command in Florida, is due in Washington on Wednesday, and sources in Afghanistan said Petraeus was also headed to Washington.

U.S. military and civilian defense leaders call 2011 the make-or-break year for turning around the war and laying the path for a gradual U.S. exit by 2015. The main obstacles are the uncertain leadership and weak government of Hamid Karzai, the open question of whether the Taliban can be integrated into Afghan political life and the continued safe harbor Pakistan provides for militants attacking U.S. and NATO forces over the border in Afghanistan.

A U.S. official who confirmed Panetta's move to the Pentagon said the White House chose him because of his long experience in Washington, including working as a congressman with budgets at the intelligence agency, as well as his time as CIA director. The official said Panetta had traveled more than 200,000 miles to more than 40 CIA stations and bases and more than 30 countries, including Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Panetta's experience as a former director of the White House Office of Management and Budget will be helpful as the military faces efforts to cut defense spending, said John Nagl, president of the Center for a New American Security, and a member of the Defense Policy Board.

Nagl said Panetta brings "an understanding of the budget process that's probably unmatched, plus complete currency on both wars," in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Gates has come up with $400 billion in prospective cuts to the defense budget over the next 10 years, and Obama has asked him to come up with $400 billion more, Nagl said, a task that will now fall to Panetta, if he is confirmed for the job.

Petraeus, who took over as Afghanistan war commander last June, had been expected to leave that post before the end of this year. His name had been floated for weeks as a possible replacement for Panetta. Current and former administration officials noted that Petraeus would bring a customer's eye to the job as one of the key people to use and understand CIA and military intelligence during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Petraeus contends that military advances, especially in the traditional Taliban stronghold areas of southern Afghanistan, have blunted the Taliban-led insurgency and given the edge to the U.S. and its NATO partners. A planned transition to Afghan security control begins this year, and the U.S. wants to start withdrawing some of its approximately 100,000 forces in July.

Sending Crocker to Afghanistan would briefly reunite him with the outgoing Petraeus, recreating the diplomatic and military team credited with rescuing the flagging American mission in Iraq. Crocker would replace Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, a former Army general whose two-year tenure has been marred by cool relationships with major players in the Afghanistan war, including the White House, U.S. military leaders and Afghan President Karzai, administration and other sources said.

The nearly wholesale changes at the top of Obama's Afghanistan military and diplomatic lineup will leave fewer military and civilian leaders who have Obama's ear and who also have Afghanistan experience. Allen, the choice to become Afghanistan war commander, has never served there.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will leave his post in September after four years dominated by the ebb of the war in Iraq and the escalation of the one in Afghanistan. The top candidate to replace Mullen is Marine Gen. James Cartwright, who also has never served in Afghanistan.

SOURCE: TOWNHALL

Rick Santorum´s Powerful "Little Bella Testimony"

2011-11-20T13:21:00.000-06:00

I honestly think that Rick Santorum would make a GREAT president. He has the right stuff and needs our support. Please take a hard look at our choices, he is what we need in the White House.
Watch the whole event on Family Forum! http://www.citizenlink.com/2011/11/19/thanksgiving-family-forum-complete-video/

AGENDA, GRINDING DOWN AMERICA (DOCUMENTARY)

2011-11-20T12:10:00.000-06:00

AGENDA: Grinding America Down (Trailer) from Copybook Heading Productions LLC on Vimeo.

This is an excellent documentary exposing the infiltration of Communists in America and the plan to destroy our country from within. I would HIGHLY recommend your purchasing a copy for yourself and buying as many copies as you can to hand out to others...

Our country is at a tipping point and many Americans are starting to wake up. The 2012 election is going to determine if we have any hope of restoring this great country to it's founding principles. If we don't do everything we can to inform the majority, I am afraid we will be doomed to losing this country to the evil that has been quietly pushing it's immoral, anti-God, anti-family, anti-American agenda. Those in power right now are deliberately destroying our country and our ability to be self sufficient. What we are seeing is pure evil. Are you going to be silent or are you going to stand up and be heard?

"When Idaho Legislator Curtis Bowers wrote a "letter to the editor" about the drastic changes in America's culture, it became the feature story on the evening news, people protested at the Capitol, and for weeks the local newspapers were filled with responses. He realized then... he'd hit on something. Ask almost anyone and you'll hear, "Communism is dead! The Berlin Wall came down." Thought the word communism isn't used anymore, this film will show the ideas behind it are alive and well. Join Bowers for a fascinating look at the people and groups that have successfully targeted America's morality and freedom in their effort to grind America down. It's a well documented AGENDA."

To purchase copies of the video: Agenda, Grinding Down America

In the documentary, they touch on Communism's 45 Goals To Destroy America. On Jan. 10, 1963, Congressman Albert S. Herlong Jr. of Florida read a list of 45 Communist goals into the Congressional Record. The list was derived from researcher Cleon Skousen’s book “The Naked Communist.” These principles are well worth revisiting today in order to gain insights into the thinking and strategies of much of our so-called liberal elite:
COMMUNISM'S 45 GOALS TO DESTROY AMERICA

Barbara from Harlem - Patriot Powderkeg** Pomona, NY Oct. 15, 2011

2011-11-19T23:49:00.000-06:00

Tea Parties United is a growing federation of New York and New Jersey Tea Party groups that is making an impact in the lower Hudson Valley. TPU held a rally at the Platzi Brauhaus in Pomona, NY on Saturday afternoon, October 15, 2011. Close to 300 people attended the four-hour event..

Several notable speakers inspired the crowd, but nobody electified the patriots like Barbara from Harlem. If you don't know of Barbara, she is a frequent caller to the Mark Levin national talk radio show.
http://www.teapartiesunited.com/
http://www.barbarafromharlem.com/index.html
http://marklevinshow.com/home.asp

Watch '180' - A shocking documentary!

2011-11-19T20:16:00.000-06:00

Share This Award-winning Controversial Video. It is 33 minutes that will rock your world!

November 2, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The creator of the pro-life Internet movie phenomenon “180” says “thousands” of testimonies have poured in describing how the movie’s haunting reminder of the Holocaust and arguments about abortion have convinced the authors of the letters to oppose legalized abortion.

The video became a major phenomenon on Youtube following its release in September, ranking as #2 most discussed, #2 most viewed, and #3 top favorited film last month, according to data posted on the Pro-Life Rocks Facebook page. It has already surpassed 1.3 million views.

The 33-minute pro-life documentary opens with disturbing footage of several young people failing to recognize Adolf Hitler, an ignorance that creator and interviewer Ray Comfort ties into widespread acceptance of today’s Holocaust: legalized abortion. As the young adults who are interviewed in the film are forced to connect the legalized killing of Jews with society’s acceptance of the killing of unborn children, they are seen changing their minds to oppose abortion.

“180 is a rollercoaster-ride of emotions, because you watch people squirm as they are put into a moral dilemma by asking if they would bury Jews alive (something that happened in the 2nd World War), at the point of a Nazi gun,” said Comfort. “It’s a character-test as to how much people value human life. To be ignorant of perhaps the darkest part of human history will inevitably result in the devaluing of life, and a repetition of the Holocaust.”

Comfort says he hopes that the movie “may be coming to a high school near you”: late last month, between 180,000 and 200,000 copies of the 33-minute DVD were given out at 100 of America’s top universities, and now the Jewish author and TV co-host is turning his attention to high schools.
While some may object to teaching high school kids about the Holocaust, Comfort, a Christian pastor who is Jewish, says such education is a dire need in America today.

“I came back to our studios [after filming 180] with 14 interviews with people who thought that [Hitler] was a communist, or an actor, or they had never even heard of his name,” he said. “These young people are rather ignorant as to perhaps the darkest period of human history, because the American education system has failed them.”

Comfort said that the 180 videos are already “going like hot cakes on a cold winter’s day” in local handout campaigns.

But the most fascinating thing about 180 is not its popularity, but its impact on pro-choice audiences, he says. “The amazing thing is that people who watch it, change from pro-abortion to pro-life,” said Comfort. “We have received thousands of emails from people, many of whom have changed while watching the movie.”

One public high school student in West Virginia wrote in an email about how 180 helped change her entire class’s mind about abortion. “This past week in our civics class we were writing essays about laws that we wish would change in America. After seeing this video I choose to do mine on abortion, and how I wished it would be illegal,” she wrote.

After I had finished reading my essay, a discussion arose in class (obviously) about how they thought abortion should be a choice, especially if the child is unhealthy or was caused because of rape. But once we started to compare it to Hitler and the Jews everyone’s minds started to change. ... Because of 180 I was able to turn around the entire class opinion about abortion and by the end of the class, 25 of the 25 students and my teacher as well had all raised their hand agreeing that abortion should be illegal.

Another simply wrote: “I used to vote pro-choice. I will not ever do so again. EVER.”

Comfort told OneNewsNow that in order to help facilitate the distribution of the movie, he is making it available for purchase in bulk quantities at the low price of one dollar per DVD at HeartChanger.com. There is also a 64-page “180 Course” booklet that will help individuals learn how to effectively present the message on the video.

Comfort explained that people can “either get the physical video, learn how to share these principles yourselves, or get on the Internet and use social media by sending the link all over the world.”

MY DAILY SOAPBOX

The Third Jihad-Full Length Documentary

'The Third Jihad' Producers Reply to New York Times Articles

Documentary recently pulled from NYPD counterterrorism training; Times articles filled with innuendo and inaccuracies

US Congressman Steve King: "Oil Will Be Sent to China if the Keystone Pipeline isn’t Built"

JFK Speech- The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, April 27, 1961

Kathleen Sebelius Destroyed Evidence to Protect Planned Parenthood in a Child Rape Case

The Real Legacy of Margaret Thatcher, Britain's Iron Lady

The Real Legacy of Margaret Thatcher, Britain's Iron Lady

Eulogy to Reagan by Thatcher

US Rep. Johnson Pitches Plan For Part-Time Congress

Johnson pitches plan for part-time Congress

THE AMERICAN AWAKENING-STOPPING AGENDA 21

Hacker Group Anonymous: “We Are The 99%” And We Find Obama Guilty Of “Domestic Terrorism”

DOCTORS GOING BROKE

"The real threat to the Hispanic community is the Democrat party with their liberal, entitlement-welfare ideas” -E.J. Otero (Video-Congressional Candidate)

GBTV: Glenn analyzes Ron Paul's record

Proof Obama Wanted NDAA 1031 Citizen Indefinite Detention To Include American Citzens Law in a Few Days

Fox News Shows The True And Dangerous Side Of OWS

OBAMA'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL APPOINTMENTS TODAY TO BE CHALLENGED IN COURT

Obama to Make Controversial Recess Appointment

Watch the latest video at &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;a href="http://video.foxnews.com"&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;video.foxnews.com&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;

Obama's Cordray Appointment Mocks the Constitution

Recess Appointments by the President: What Our Constitution Really Says

If the Senate rejects any nomination, the President may not circumvent that rejection by unconstitutional gimmicks such as those proposed by Arkush~

Look It Up In Our Constitution!

Check It Out In The Federalist Papers!

Endnotes:

Watch, Organize, Pray and Vote November 2012 (GBTV VERSION)

The Obama Christmas Carol

HAS FREEDOM DIED?

Please check out this list from the article below:

Ladies and gentlemen, America is now a Marxist police state with a tin pot dictator in charge.

2) According to the goarmy.com website, the Army is now actively recruiting for MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) 31E, otherwise known as an Internment/Resettlement Specialist.

3) 800 detainment camps have been built covertly all over the United States, allegedly capable of holding two million people.

4) The federal government is now using drones in America.

5) The federal government is actively seeking to curtail our second amendment gun rights, by any means possible.

6) The authority will soon be in place whereby the president can declare martial law, and can detain anyone indefinitely.

7) U.N troops, who have no loyalty to or sentiment towards American citizens have been training for mass crisis situations on U.S. soil.

8) The administration has a website whereby people can be “turned in” by anyone for saying anything critical of the administration.

9) The Department of Homeland Security has a “target list” already in place, as outlined in their infamous report.......

If that doesn't worry you at all....then how about this:

Newsmax‘s Ronald Kessler On White House Construction: They’re Building A Top Secret Underground Bunker

by Alex Alvarez | 4:59 pm, November 30th, 2011

But if the project is indeed so top secret, why is it being built so openly and in plain sight?

NULLIFY NOW: Oath Keeper Sheriff Richard Mack , "This is not a violent revolution"

Eric Holder & President Bill Clinton Pardoned Terrorists

How Eric Holder fixed the FALN pardons

BOB HOPE'S USO CHRISTMAS SPECIALS~THANKS FOR THE MEMORIES

Thanks For The Memories…

O'Reilly Factor Tribute to Bob Hope

Bob Hope Christmases with the troops

This is an awesome tribute to Bob Hope:

BOB HOPE CHRISTMAS SPECIAL

Eric Holder Implicated In Cover Up Of Murder Of Kenneth Trentadue In 1995

To help you understand the story behind the torture/murder of Kenneth Trentadue and how his murder has exposed a connection of the FBI to the Oklahoma City bombing and, at that time, Deputy Attorney General, Eric Holder's part in blocking any investigation into this murder.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OKLAHOMA STATE MEDICAL EXAMINER SPEAKING OUT AGAINST CLINTON-RENO JUSTICE

‘Fast & Furious’ Not Eric Holder’s First Controversy Involving the Murder of an American Citizen

October 10th, 2011

Attorney General Holder Tied to OKC Bombers

Oklahoma City Bombing RARE footage

RELATED LINKS: For comprehensive listing of videos, articles and photographs (warning..graphic): APFN.ORG

KennethTrentadue.com

Truth In Justice

Mother Jones

The Corbett Report

Ct. Mayor Wants To Allow Illegal Aliens To Vote In Local Elections

CT mayor wants illegals to vote

Says they already pay taxes indirectly

MF Global Employee Indicated Corzine Knew Loans Were Made From Customer Accounts

A President of Honor (VIDEO)

Congressman Joe Walsh Announces 8th District Run at Chicago Tea Party 12/8/2011

Rep. Issa Accuses Eric Holder of Lying To Congress And Resisting Being Sworn In To Testify Before Congress

Rep. Dennis Ross to AG Holder: You Can Delegate Authority, But You Cannot Delegate Responsibility

National Guard Soldier Arrested For Not Wanting to Fire On American Citizens (must watch)

FORMER EMPLOYESS LAUNCH LAWSUIT AGAINST FORMER GOVERNOR JON CORZINE

David Horowitz Releases Must See Video: Obama- The Anti-Israel President

Obama Says Capitalism And Liberty Don't Work-Apparently He Wants America To Look Like Greece

‘Legalized Bribery’: How Bad is Congressional Insider Trading? You Might be Shocked at Some of the Details Revealed by Glenn Beck and Peter Schweizer