Is America Being Deliberately Pushed Toward Civil War?
Source: alt-market.com Wednesday, 06 November 2013 04:24, by Brandon Smith
In 2009, Jim Rickards, a lawyer, investment banker and adviser on capital markets to the Director of National Intelligence and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, participated in a secret war game sponsored by the Pentagon at the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL). The game’s objective was to simulate and explore the potential outcomes and effects of a global financial war. At the end of the war game, the Pentagon concluded that the U.S. dollar was at extreme risk of devaluation and collapse in the near term, triggered either by a default of the U.S. Treasury and the dumping of bonds by foreign investors or by hyperinflation by the private Federal Reserve.
These revelations, later exposed by Rickards, were interesting not because they were “new” or “shocking.” Rather, they were interesting because many of us in the field of alternative economics had ALREADY predicted the same outcome for the American financial system years before the APL decided to entertain the notion. At least, that is what the public record indicates.
The idea that our government has indeed run economic collapse scenarios, found the United States in mortal danger, and done absolutely nothing to fix the problem is bad enough. I have my doubts, however, that the Pentagon or partnered private think tanks like the RAND Corporation did not run scenarios on dollar collapse long before 2009. In fact, I believe there is much evidence to suggest that the military industrial complex has not only been aware of the fiscal weaknesses of the U.S. system for decades, but they have also been actively engaged in exploiting those weaknesses in order to manipulate the American public with fears of cultural catastrophe.
History teaches us that most economic crisis events are followed or preceded immediately by international or domestic conflict. War is the looming shadow behind nearly all fiscal disasters. I suspect that numerous corporate think tanks and the Department Of Defense are perfectly aware of this relationship and have war gamed such events as well. Internal strife and civil war are often natural side effects of economic despair within any population.
Has a second civil war been “gamed” by our government? And are Americans being swindled into fighting and killing each other while the banksters who created the mess observe at their leisure, waiting until the dust settles to return to the scene and collect their prize? Here are some examples of how both sides of the false left/right paradigm are being goaded into turning on each other.
Conservatives: Taunting The Resting Lion
Conservatives, especially Constitutional conservatives, are the warrior class of American society. The average conservative is far more likely to own a firearm, have extensive tactical training with that firearm, have military experience and have less psychological fear of conflict; and he is more apt to take independent physical action in the face of an immediate threat. Constitutional conservatives are also more likely to fight based on principal and heritage, rather than personal gain, and less likely to get wrapped up in the madness of mob activity.
What’s the greatest weakness of conservatives? It’s their tendency to entertain leadership by men who claim exceptional warrior status, even if those men are not necessarily honorable.
Constitutional conservatives are the most substantial existing threat to the establishment hierarchy because, unlike dissenting groups of the past, we know exactly who the guiding hand is behind economic and social calamity. In response, the overall conservative culture has come under relentless attack by the establishment using the Administration of Barack Obama as a middleman. The goal, I believe, is to misdirect conservative rage toward the Democratic left and away from the elites. The actions of the White House have become so absurd and so openly hostile as of late that I can only surmise that this is a deliberate strategy to lure conservatives into ill-conceived retaliation against a puppet government, rather than the men behind the curtain.
Department of Defense propaganda briefings with military personnel have been exposed. These briefings train current serving soldiers to view Tea Party conservatives and even Christian organizations as “dangerous extremists.” Reports from sources within Fort Hood and Fort Shelby confirm this trend.
The DOD has denied some of the allegations or claimed that it has “corrected” the problem; however, Judicial Watch has obtained official training documents through a Freedom of Information Act request that affirm that extremist profiling is an integral part of these military briefings. The documents also cite none other than the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a primary resource for the training classes. The SPLC is nothing more than an outsourced propaganda wing for the DHS that attacks Constitutional organizations and associates them with terrorist and racist groups on a regular basis. (Check pages 32-33.)
This indoctrination program has accelerated since January 2013, after Professor Arie Perliger, a member of a West Point think tank called Combating Terrorism Center (and according to the sparse biographical information available, a man with NO previous U.S. military experience), published and circulated a report called “Challengers From The Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far Right” at West Point. The report classified “far right extremists” as “domestic enemies” who commonly “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government , believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional right.” The profile goes on to list supporting belief in “civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government” as the dastardly traits of evil extremists.
Soldiers have been told that associating with “far right extremist groups” could be used as grounds for court-martial. A general purge of associated symbolism has ensued, including new orders handed down to Navy SEALs that demand that operators remove the “Don’t Tread On Me” Navy Jack patch from their uniforms.
The indoctrination of the military also follows on the heels of a massive media campaign to demonize Constitutional conservatives who fought against Obamacare in the latest debt ceiling debate as “domestic enemies” and “terrorists.” I documented this in my recent article “Are Constitutional Conservatives Really the Boogeyman?”
Obama and his ilk have been caught red-handed in numerous conspiracies, including Fast and Furious, which shipped American arms through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. And how about the exposure of the IRS using its bureaucracy as a weapon to harass Tea Party organizations and activists? And what about Benghazi, Libya, the terrorist attack that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton allowed to happen, if they didn’t directly order it to happen? And let’s not forget about the Edward Snowden revelations, which finally made Americans understand that mass surveillance of our population is a constant reality.
To add icing to the cake, a new book called Double Down, which chronicles the Obama campaign of 2012, quotes personal aides to the President who relate that Obama, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, when discussing his use of drone strikes, bragged that he was “really good at killing people.”
Now, my question is, why would the Obama Administration make so many “mistakes,” attack conservatives with such a lack of subtlety, and attempt to openly propagandize rank-and-file soldiers, many of whom identify with conservative values? Is it all just insane hubris, or is he serving his handlers by trying to purposely create a volatile response?
Liberals: Taking Away The Cookie Jar
Many on the so-called “left” are socially oriented and find solace in the functions of the group, rather than individualism. They seek safety in administration, centralization and government welfare. Wealth is frowned upon, while “redistribution” of wealth is cheered. They see government as necessary to the daily survival of the nation, and they work to expand Federal influence into all facets of life. Some liberals do this out of a desire to elevate the poverty-stricken and ensure certain educational standards. However, they tend to ignore the homogenizing effect this strategy has on society, making everyone equally destitute and equally stupid. Their faith in government subsidies also makes them vulnerable to funding cuts and reductions in entitlements. The left normally fights only when their standard of living and comfort to which they have grown accustomed plummets below a certain threshold, and mob methods are usually their fallback form of retaliation.
Austerity cuts, which the mainstream media calls the “sequester,” are beginning to take effect. But, they are being applied in areas that are clearly meant to create the most public anger. Reductions in welfare programs are also being implemented in a way that will certainly agitate average left-leaning citizens. The debt debate itself revolved around those who want the government to spend within its means versus those who want the government to spend even more on welfare programs no matter the consequence. The loss of subsidies is at bottom the greatest fear of the left.
A sudden and inexplicable shutdown of electronic benefit transfer cards (EBT cards or food stamps) occurred in more than 17 States while the debt debate just happened to be climaxing. This month, cuts to existing food stamp funds have taken effect, and food pantries across the country are scrambling against a sharp spike in demand.
Remember, about 50 million Americans are currently dependent on EBT welfare in order to feed themselves and their families. The response to the relatively short EBT shutdown last month was outright fury. Imagine the response in the event of a long-term shutdown, or if extraneous cuts were to occur? And where would that anger be directed? Since the entire debt debacle has been blamed on the Tea Party, I suspect conservatives will be the main target of welfare mobs.
The left, once just as opposed to government stimulus and banker bailouts as the right, is now unwittingly throwing its support behind infinite stimulus in order to cement the continued existence of precious Federal handouts. The issue of Obamacare has utterly blinded liberals to fiscal responsibility. Universal healthcare, perhaps the ultimate Federal handout, is a prize too titillating for them to ignore. Democrats will now go to incredible lengths to defend the Obama White House regardless of past crimes.
They are willing to ignore his offenses against the 4th Amendment and personal privacy. They are willing to look past his offenses against the 1st Amendment, including the Constitutional right to trial by jury for all Americans, and Obama’s secret war against the free speech of whistle-blowers. They are willing to shrug off his endless warmongering in the Mideast, his attempts to foment new war in Syria and Iran, and his support for predator drone strikes in sovereign nations causing severe civilian collateral damage. They are willing to forget Snowden, mass surveillance and executive assassination lists — all for Obamacare.
And the saddest thing of all? It is likely that Obamacare was never meant to be successful in the first place.
Does anyone really believe that the White House, with billions of dollars at its disposal, could not get a website off the ground if it really wanted to? Does anyone really believe that Obama would launch the crowning jewel of his Presidency without making certain that it was fully operational, unless this was part of a greater scheme?
And how about his promise that pre-existing health care plans would not be destroyed by Obamacare mandates? Over 900,000 people in the state of California alone are about to lose their health care insurance due to the Affordable Healthcare Act. Why would Obama go back on such a vital pledge unless he WANTED to piss off constituents?
Already, liberal websites and forums across the blogosphere are abuzz with talk of sabotage of the Obamacare website by “the radical right” and the diabolical Koch Brothers (liberals had no idea who they were a year ago, but now, they the go to scapegoat for everything). Once again, conservatives are presented as the culprits behind all the left’s troubles.
As I have stated in the past, Obamacare is designed to fail. The government has no capacity to fund it, and never will. Its only conceivable purpose is to further divide the country and excite both sides of the false paradigm into attacking each other as the reason the system is failing, when both sides should be questioning whether the current system should exist at all.
As the situation stands today, at least 50 million welfare recipients and who knows how many others exist as a resource pool for the establishment to be used to wreak havoc on the rest of us. All they have to do is take away the cookie jar.
Who Would Win?
Who would prevail in a second American civil war? Tactically speaking, conservatives have the upper hand and are far better prepared. Food rioters wouldn’t last beyond three to six weeks as starvation takes its toll, and mindless mobs would not last long against seasoned riflemen. The military, though suffering purges by the White House, still contains numerous conservatives within its ranks. Outside influences, including NATO or the United Nations, are a possibility. There are numerous factors to consider. But I would point out that the most dangerous adversary Constitutional conservatives face is not the left, Obama, or a Federal government gone rogue. Rather, our greatest adversary is ourselves.
If lured into a left/right civil war, would most conservatives be able to see beyond the veil and recognize that the fight is not about Obama, or the Left, or tyrannical government alone? Could we be co-opted by devious influences disguised as friends and compatriots? Will we end up following neocon salesmen and military elites who materialize out of the woodwork at the last minute to “lead us to victory” while actually leading us towards globalization with a slightly different face?
If a civil conflict has been war gamed by the establishment, you can bet they have contingency plans regardless of which side attains the upper hand. In the end, if we do not make the fight about the bankers and globalists, the Federal Reserve, the International Monetary Fund, the Council On Foreign Relations, etc., then everyone loses. Who wins in a new American civil war? If we become blinded by the trespasses of a certain White House jester, only the globalists will win.
Well..... I agree. All the nuts going after the bankers is a problem. However, the guy makes some valid points about conservatives; being prepared, gun owners, trained in shooting, former military, etc. Definitely something to consider.
President Obama is taking a great deal of heat for the cancellations of millions of policies after he repeatedly told citizens that if you like your policy you could keep it. He recently apologized for what seems a classic bait and switch. However, Obama has now announced a fix that raises a more serious question in my mind. Most of us have become used to a relatively high level of dishonesty from our leaders in Congress as well as the White House. This blog has documented whoppers, even perjury, that results in little more than a shrug in today’s political system. However, the “fix” involves the President unilaterally changing that scope and timing of a law. This has been a recurring concern with this President and the rise of the “Imperial Presidency” that he has established within ever-expanding executive powers. I will be discussing this issue today on CNN.
While the line between legislation and enforcement can become blurred, this view is generally reflective of the functions defined in Article I and Article II. The Take Care Clause is one of the most direct articulations of this division. The Clause states “[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . .” U.S. Const. art. II, § 3, cl. 4. It is one of the clearest and most important mandates in the Constitution. The Framers not only draw the distinction between making and enforcing laws, but, with the enforcement of the law, the Framers stressed that the execution of the laws created by Congress must be faithfully administered. The language combines a mandate of the execution of laws with the qualifying obligation of their faithful execution.
Nonenforcement orders challenge this arrangement by imposing a type of presidential veto extrinsic to the legislative process. The legitimacy of such orders has long been challenged as an extraconstitutional measure. Yet, since Thomas Jefferson, Presidents have asserted the discretion not to enforce laws that they deemed unconstitutional.
Jefferson took a stand against the Sedition Act that was used for many blatant abuses against political enemies in the early Republic. Jefferson cited his oath to protect the Constitution compelling him to act to “arrest [the] execution” of the law at “every stage.” Jefferson’s stand represented the strongest basis for nonenforcement in a law that was used against political opponents and free speech.
From Internet gambling to educational waivers to immigration deportations to health care decisions, the Obama Administration has been unilaterally ordering major changes in federal law with the notable exclusion of Congress. Many of these changes have been defended as discretionary acts or mere interpretations of existing law. However, they fit an undeniable pattern of circumventing Congress in the creation new major standards, exceptions, or outright nullifications. What is most striking about these areas is that they are precisely the type of controversial questions designed for the open and deliberative legislative process. The unilateral imposition of new rules robs the system of its stabilizing characteristics in dealing with factional divisions.
I cannot find the authority under the ACA to grant millions of Americans an effective waiver or delay. The White House will clearly defend this as simply an exercise of discretion in the enforcement of laws. There is certainly support in such claims, though they are controversial. I just published an academic piece the explores the constitutional problems with the expansion of the powers of the “fourth Branch.” See Jonathan Turley, Recess Appointments in the Age of Regulation, 93 Boston University Law Review ___ (2013) and Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Adverse Possession: Recess Appointments and the Role of Historical Practice in Constitutional Interpretation, 2103 Wisconsin Law Review ___ (2013). I also wrote a column on the subject for the Washington Post. I fail to see how the legislative process can have meaning if a president can effectively rewrite laws in the name of agency discretion. It is an argument that adds to the already dangerous concentration of executive power under this President.
This issue has nothing to do with the merits of the ACA. As with my criticism of Sebelius for the grossly negligent administration of the law, this is not about how one feels about the law. President Obama will leave a presidency that is dangerously unchecked and Democrats will be saddled with their support of those powers when they are claimed by a president less to their liking.
The President used a clearly misleading argument to secure support for the ACA. He is now trying to reduce the outcry over that argument with a political recalibration of the law. To do so, he is acting in a clearly legislative fashion in my view. I could be wrong. The White House may find a provision in this law (that few members actually read) where it gives him the power to unilaterally grant exceptions and delays to different groups. However, they have not suggested it and I cannot see it. That leave us with the same inherent executive power argument that has been the mantra of this President in areas of surveillance, kill lists, and other areas.
The “fix” makes obvious political sense for the Administration but I fail to see the constitutional basis for such unilateral changes in a federal law.
At what point my country is no longer America remains to be seen
“I Can’t Believe” This is Happening in America
By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh Friday, November 15, 2013
My “I Can’t Believe This is Happening to America” list is growing larger by the day. It is so vast now, I can write a book. Would my book have an audience? Judging by the eagerness with which most Americans have embraced the transformational hope and change of our country to communist utopia, the answer is no.
I can’t believe New Yorkers have elected a blatant Marxist as their mayor. I can’t believe Terry McAuliffe is the governor of Virginia. The American men who fought in the Revolutionary War must be turning in their graves knowing that the hallowed ground in Virginia they defended against the British tyranny is now run by Marxist Democrats.
I voted last Tuesday, I took with me to the precinct a piece of toilet paper I found on my last trip to Romania, a “former” communist country where the apparatchiks went underground for a while and are now resurfacing with a vengeance. Twenty-four years later, the commies have not perfected the intricate art of making toilet paper – it was covered with splinters within the layers. On the bright side, this time toilet paper was available and I did not have to fight hundreds of people in line for three hours in order to purchase one roll. I showed my strip of toilet paper to the people who were checking I.D.s asking them if this was the kind of country they wanted. Most laughed, did not realize that I carried this over 7,000 miles with me, and turned back to their duties to make sure all the low information and illegal citizens voted. Why bother? It won’t happen here, we have everything, and we live in the land of abundance – for now.
It was a cruel joke to pretend that poll watchers were making sure voting was legitimate. All illegal aliens in my county have driver licenses. There is no place on the driver’s license that says, illegal or non-citizen, you cannot vote. Dead people voted early and repeatedly. The 2010 Census said that our county’s population grew by 40 percent in the last ten years and most of that growth came from the illegal alien population. They are not hiding in the shadows as progressives/Marxists say, they are living around us with no fear or deportation or shame of criminality.
I can’t believe our government would make 12 ads portraying young people, Millennials, as promiscuous individuals whose only goal in life is to hook up and engage in dangerous sexual activities with strangers and in life-altering practices for self-gratification. This is America, they should not have to control themselves, they have the freedom to be immoral – if it feels right, do it. But not to worry, if they enroll in ObamaCare, the government will pay for all their mistakes, STDs, unwanted children, and all other purposeful missteps in life that have serious consequences.
I can’t believe that government would take control over our bodies, over every facet of our lives, break so many laws in such a short period of time that I’ve lost count, with nobody protesting, impeaching, or sending the offenders to prison.
I can’t believe our stellar medical care that is beneficial to Americans and people around the world is in such a state of chaos that quality and quantity may be gone in just a few short months. Doctors must be invited to participate in ObamaCare in order for patients to keep their doctors in the exchanges and the selection process is secret.
I can’t believe our faith has been attacked to the point that Christians are cowering under the fear of government. Priests and men of cloth are beginning to preach communism every Sunday and support Islam.
I can’t believe the number of mosques that are mushrooming around the country literally overnight. But then we are tolerant in America to the point of foolishness while most Muslim countries do not tolerate Christianity except until recently, Egypt.
Hollywood does not make much fuss over the killing of Christians in Egypt and elsewhere. I wonder what keeps them from saving Tibet. I’ve seen “save Tibet” and “coexist” bumper stickers for decades now; Tibet is not saved, Darfur is still an awful place for non-Muslims and the only people willing to coexist are the Christians, not the Marxists or the Muslims.
I can’t believe our military is being destroyed and TSA goons with unreasonable power are in charge of our flying “safety.”
I can’t believe police are everywhere, cavity searching, car searching, and home searching, with or without probable cause, with or without warrants. I can’t believe most judges are now communist activists litigating from the bench the rules of Marxist utopia.
I can’t believe NSA is listening in, gathering data, and recording everything we do in the same vein that the Stasi in East Germany were spying on, listening in, and keeping detailed written records of the “Lives of Others.”
I can’t believe border patrols are told not to watch our borders. I can’t believe the illegal aliens’ blatant disregard for our laws and the gall to demand equal rights with Americans at the National Mall in D.C. while our veterans were denied access to the same mall where their memorials were erected.
I can’t believe Islam has infiltrated our country so deeply that imams are now demanding and succeeding in some parts of the country in installing Sharia Law as part of our legal system in violation of our Constitution.
I can’t believe our schools in many states are now bowing down to Islam while forbidding our Christian traditions, national anthem, the Pledge of Allegiance, and our flag.
I can’t believe our doctors, medical care, and medical life and death decisions are now residing with 16,000 IRS agents who work with numbers but will decide and approve the necessity of our medical procedures.
I can’t believe people with rap sheets of criminality are now “navigators,” tasked to enroll Americans in ObamaCare, and trusted with personal information, inviting massive fraud.
I can’t believe our military has turned into a compliant army of the administration, where sensitivity training towards gays and transgenders trumps our national security.
I can’t believe we are turning our food supply, preparation, and delivery to the Chinese and a few very large corporations.
I can’t believe we are turning into a welfare nation supported by part-time workers who cannot find jobs because they’ve been shipped overseas in the quest for cheap labor or because of the expensive cost of ObamaCare that employers must partially bear.
I can’t believe our property rights, zoning, and water usage, passage, mineral and fossil fuel exploration rights will be turned over to the United Nations.
I can’t believe that our small arms will be confiscated eventually under the guise of the Small Arms Treaty.
I can’t believe most Americans are so gullible to believe the global warming hoax and the manufactured “consensus” paraded as faux science in the face of real scientific evidence to the contrary.
I can’t believe our currency has been so debased through the work of the Federal Reserve System which has been buying $85 billion worth of bonds each month, propping up Wall Street, not Main Street.
I can’t believe that 29 progressives wrote Common Core education standards, using $178 million in funds from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, with the intent of turning our children into good little communist subjects, yet Americans think that is good for the country. I can’t believe that the curriculum was not scrutinized by those in charge from the 45 states that adopted Common Core indoctrination.
I can’t believe that our education will be further dumbed down towards the collective mindset where American exceptionalism that gave us all the technological developments in the last 150 years will be relegated to the dust bin of history.
I can’t believe that we lost our country to Marxists and everybody seems to be preoccupied by the latest episode of their favorite reality show, sports team, vampire show, and witch show.
The Romans were dulled and bought with “pane et circenses,” bread and circuses, and their end came at the hands of the invading hoards who refused to learn Latin and wanted to have what the Romans had, instant prosperity, property, and power.
My list of “I Can’t Believe This is Happening in America” grows each day. At what point my country is no longer America remains to be seen.
For hundreds of years, this nation has been known as the United States of America. But according to author and journalist Colin Woodard, the country is neither united, nor made up of 50 states. Woodward has studied American voting patterns, demographics and public opinion polls going back to the days of the first settlers, and says that his research shows America is really made up of 11 different nations.
"Yankeedom" in the Northeast and industrial Midwest was founded by Puritans and residents there have always been comfortable with a government that regulates and moderates. The communities of the Deep South in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and other states were founded by former West Indian plantation owners who wanted to recreate the society they were used to: government based on the sacrosanct rights of a few wealthy elite. "Greater Appalachia," extending from West Virginia in a wide band to the northern half of Texas, was settled by people from Northern Ireland, England and Scotland. Those people were openly antagonistic to the so-called "ruling oligarchies" and upper classes, so they opposed the slave plantation economy, but they also distrust government.
Woodard says that while individual residents will have their own opinions, each region has become more segregated by ideology in recent years. In fact, he says the mobility of American citizens has increased this partisan isolation as people tend to self-segregate into like-minded communities.
"This isn't about individual behavior, it's about the characteristics of the dominant cultures of these various regions. And you can, as an individual, like or hate the sort of surrounding assumptions where you live," Woodard says. "But that force that you feel that's there, and those sort of assumptions and givens about politics, and culture, and different social relationships — that's the forces of dominant culture that go back to the early colonial period, and the differences between various colonial clusters and their founders."
The author of the original paper (found here) is a lib crusading against guns and the paper really reflects that but, I do think the breakdown of the dividing lines is fairly accurate.
For hundreds of years, this nation has been known as the United States of America. But according to author and journalist Colin Woodard, the country is neither united, nor made up of 50 states. Woodward has studied American voting patterns, demographics and public opinion polls going back to the days of the first settlers, and says that his research shows America is really made up of 11 different nations.
"Yankeedom" in the Northeast and industrial Midwest was founded by Puritans and residents there have always been comfortable with a government that regulates and moderates. The communities of the Deep South in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and other states were founded by former West Indian plantation owners who wanted to recreate the society they were used to: government based on the sacrosanct rights of a few wealthy elite. "Greater Appalachia," extending from West Virginia in a wide band to the northern half of Texas, was settled by people from Northern Ireland, England and Scotland. Those people were openly antagonistic to the so-called "ruling oligarchies" and upper classes, so they opposed the slave plantation economy, but they also distrust government.
Woodard says that while individual residents will have their own opinions, each region has become more segregated by ideology in recent years. In fact, he says the mobility of American citizens has increased this partisan isolation as people tend to self-segregate into like-minded communities.
"This isn't about individual behavior, it's about the characteristics of the dominant cultures of these various regions. And you can, as an individual, like or hate the sort of surrounding assumptions where you live," Woodard says. "But that force that you feel that's there, and those sort of assumptions and givens about politics, and culture, and different social relationships — that's the forces of dominant culture that go back to the early colonial period, and the differences between various colonial clusters and their founders."
The author of the original paper (found here) is a lib crusading against guns and the paper really reflects that but, I do think the breakdown of the dividing lines is fairly accurate, namely the Yankeedom and Left Coast areas. The rest of the areas, I think, share more in common than the others.
Today two Airmen were killed on the highway going to work. They probably earned these medals more than Clinton and absolutely more than Oprah Winfrey.
Obama awards Medal of Freedom to Clinton, Oprah, others
President Obama presents the Presdential Medal of Freedom to the likes of Bill Clinton and Oprah Winfrey. VPC
David Jackson, USA TODAY 1:35 p.m. EST November 20, 2013
President Obama paid tribute Wednesday to Democratic predecessor Bill Clinton, and both of them honored a presidential icon: John F. Kennedy.
Obama awarded Clinton and 15 other Americans the Presidential Medal of Freedom, created 50 years ago by Kennedy. Other recipients included television legend Oprah Winfrey, country music artist Loretta Lynn, women's rights leader Gloria Steinem, baseball great Ernie Banks and pioneering astronaut Sally Ride.
"These are men and women who in their extraordinary lives remind us all of the beauty of the human spirit," Obama said during a ceremony at the White House.
Obama and Clinton later traveled to Arlington National Cemetery for a solemn ceremony at the eternal flame that marks Kennedy's grave. Friday is the 50th anniversary of the assassination that transformed American politics and culture.
The delegation to the graveside included members of the Kennedy family, as well as a former official who may soon seek the presidency herself: Ex-first lady and secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton.
On a sunny but chilly day, Obama, the Clintons, and first lady Michelle placed a wreath before the twin graves of President Kennedy and wife Jacqueline. The Obamas and the Clintons held their hands over their hearts as a military bugler played "Taps."
Obama also pays tribute to JFK at a dinner tonight for current and past Medal of Freedom recipients.
Like their presidential predecessors, Obama and Clinton have often paid homage to the memory of the charismatic Clinton.
The Kennedy family gave Obama crucial support during his 2008 presidential campaign. The endorsement of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., the late president's brother, helped Obama win that year's Democratic primary race -- over Hillary Clinton, no less.
This year, Obama made Caroline Kennedy, JFK's daughter, the ambassador to Japan.
Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign featured pictures of him as a 16-year-old member of Boy's Nation shaking hands with President Kennedy in 1963, casting it as a symbolic passing of the torch.
Even Republican presidents have hailed the Kennedy mystique. President Reagan, for example, cited JFK's support for tax cuts.
Obama's GOP predecessor, George W. Bush, cultivated Edward Kennedy's support on education and other issues. Bush invited Edward Kennedy and members of his family to the screening of a film about JFK's handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
During the Presidential Medal of Freedom ceremony in the East Room, Obama praised Clinton for a journey that took him from a small town in Arkansas to the White House and cited his predecessor's post-presidential humanitarian work, saying "he doesn't stop,"
The current president also thanked Clinton for his "advice and counsel ... on and off the golf course."
Other Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients hailed from the worlds of politics, entertainment, science, civil rights, and the arts.
Winfrey, whose talk show transformed television interviews, reached "the pinnacle of the entertainment universe," Obama said of his fellow Chicagoan and long-time political supporter.
"Her message was always, 'you can,'" Obama said.
In addition to Clinton, Obama honored other political leaders. He hailed the efforts of former senator Richard Lugar, R-Ind., to reduce global stockpiles of nuclear weapons, describing it as the "extinction of Cold War arsenals."
The late Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, lost an arm and earned a Medal of Honor in World War II, and went on to become the second longest-serving senator in United States history.
Civil and human rights played a large role in the Medal of Freedom ceremony.
Steinem, who began professional life as a journalist, "awakened a vast and often skeptical" nation to issues like domestic abuse and pay discrimination, Obama said.
The Rev. C.T. Vivian was "among the first to be in on the action" during the civil rights struggles of the 1960s, from the Freedom Rides to Selma, Obama said.
Another civil rights pioneer, the late Bayard Rustin, organized the 1963 March on Washington. Obama pointed out that Rustin fought for civil rights on another front, as an openly gay man.
Judge Patricia Wald was the first woman to sit on the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.
Lynn, often called the queen of country music, "gave voice to a generation" through such songs as Coal Miner's Daughter, the title of a biographical film about her life.
Jazz legend Arturo Sandoval learned to play the trumpet in communist Cuba, where listening to music on the Voice of America could get you tossed in jail, Obama said.
Obama noted that baseball Hall of Famer Ernie Banks -- "Mr. Cub" from Chicago -- came up through the old Negro League and became famous for his infectious enthusiasm as well as his power hitting.
Former University of North Carolina basketball coach Dean Smith -- a hoops innovator -- helped integrate a restaurant in Chapel Hill and recruited the school's first African-American athlete during the 1960s, the president said.
Science was also honored at the Medal of Freedom of ceremony.
Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman "basically invented the study of human decision making," Obama said.
Environmental scientist Mario Molina, another Nobel Prize winner, specified the dangers of carbon emissions, the president said.
Another honoree had a direct connection to John Kennedy: Ben Bradlee was a neighbor of JFK's and covered his presidency for Newsweek magazine. Bradlee later was editor of The Washington Post, making it a national political force through coverage of the Pentagon Papers and Watergate.
A new poll shows that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are the “hottest” politicians in the nation, while congressional leaders from both parties receive the poorest scores.
A Quinnipiac University “thermometer” of voter attitudes toward the nation’s top political figures showed that Mr. Christie tops out the list at 53.1 degrees and that Mrs. Clinton sits second at 52.1 degrees. House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, bring up the rear with scores of 36.7 degrees and 33.8 degrees, respectively.
“Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s score is not surprising given her lengthy political career and especially strong support among Democrats and women,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
“But Gov. Christopher Christie’s rating is impressive given that his experience — less than four years as governor — pales compared to Mrs. Clinton’ s resume. What is interesting is that only two of the 22 figures rate better than the absolute middle of the scale, not exactly a ringing endorsement of the nation’s political establishment,” Mr. Brown said.
The rankings, though, also suggest that Mr. Christie could struggle to woo GOP primary voters if he decides to run for president in 2016. He places eight on the heat check meter among Republican voters, while Rep. Paul Ryan received the best scores among the GOP electorate.
Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida place second and third among Republicans, while Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker places fourth. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky places fifth.
“Christie’s great strength is among independent voters, who give him 50.6 degrees of love, and Democrats, who give him 53.2 degrees,” Mr. Brown said. “His rating on the thermometer scale is a good indication of what may face him should he travel the 2016 campaign trail. His tougher problem may be winning the GOP nomination because in most states, only registered Republicans are able to vote in party primaries.”
“For example, Christie is much hotter than Sen. Rand Paul among all voters, but trails him by a bit among Republicans,” he said.
Here are the overall findings:
• Gov. Chris Christie — 53.1
• Former Secretary Hillary Clinton — 52.1
• Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren — 49.2
• President Obama — 47.6
• New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand — 47.6
• Texas Sen. Sen. Cruz — 46.8
• Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida — 46.5
• Vice President Joseph R. Biden — 46.2
• Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley — 45.7
• Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal — 45.2
• Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky — 44.8
• New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo — 43.9
• U.S. Rep. Peter King of New York — 43.6
• U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan — 43
• Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker — 41.1
• Former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania — 40.7
• Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush — 40.4
• Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia — 39.4
• Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi — 38.4
• Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell — 37.5
• Republican House Speaker John Boehner — 36.7
• Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid — 33.8
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nikita Khrushchev:"We will bury you"
"Your grandchildren will live under communism."
“You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ."
We’ll so weaken your To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. like overripe fruit into our hands."
In a video posted at Breitbart.com on Tuesday, a New Black Panther Leader identified by The Blaze as possibly being King Samir Shabazz, said that blacks will have to kill white babies “seconds” after they’re born, while suggesting bombing nurseries.
The Blaze also noted that the host, presumably Shabazz, also said that “blacks are ‘too scared’ to drag whites out of their houses, skin them, hang them in trees, drag them behind trucks, and pour acid on them. He talks about that as he announces the desire for a new ‘military.’”
In another piece of audio posted at Breitbart, New Black Panther Party Chief of Staff Michelle Williams said the black community in Tampa is “under siege,” and attacked white people as well as black conservatives.
While ranting about why she hates white people, she “vowed that as long as whites keep characterizing blacks as ‘ni***rs,’ her ‘feet [will be] on your motherf*****g necks,’” The Blaze added.
In April, we reported that Williams was one of the New Black Panther Party members calling for violence against white people.
“I just want to say to all the listeners on this phone call, that if you are having any doubt about getting suited, booted, and armed up for this race war that we’re in that has never ended, let me tell you something…the thing that’s about to happen to these honkies, these crackers, these pigs, these people, these motherf****r…it has been long overdue,” she said.
The Blaze reminded readers that she played a role in the $10,000 bounty placed on George Zimmerman.
She later apologized, but Jonathon M. Seidl wrote that “one has to wonder how heartfelt that apology was” after her latest comments.
So far, Obama’s Justice Department has refused to take any actions against the hate group.
The time is coming when the media will revolt. Somehow, I have this strange feeling that time is almost upon us and it will be before the people revolt.
By Doug Powers • November 22, 2013 12:01 PM **Written by Doug Powers
Much like these Dem aides, it’s also difficult to feel sorry for the press in this situation:
The nation’s largest news organizations lodged a complaint Thursday against the White House for imposing unprecedented limitations on photojournalists covering President Barack Obama, which they say have harmed the public’s ability to monitor its own government.
The organizations accuse the White House of banning photojournalists from covering Obama at some events, and then later releasing its own photos and videos of the same events.
“Journalists are routinely being denied the right to photograph or videotape the president while he is performing his official duties,” according to a letter the organizations sent to the White House. “As surely as if they were placing a hand over a journalist’s camera lens, officials in this administration are blocking the public from having an independent view of important functions of the executive branch of government.”
Many of these same media organizations helped carry Obama into office on their backs like pack mules, and now they’re upset that their ability to take pictures has been severely restricted by the most transparent administration in history. If Obama could run for a third term, that’s is the kind of thing that might give the MSM a few seconds of pause before ultimately deciding to enthusiastically endorse him once again because of the promise, “If you like your transparent administration, you can keep it.” **Written by Doug Powers
Honestly, I really, truly feel bad for these misinformed, misdirected people. I've never in my life used the "N" word against anyone. I don't go around claiming "whites are superior" and think that black and white should not even be seeing the color of the other.
For the blacks to continue this charade is absolutely wrong and completely misdirected by their own people, and certain whites who are trying to keep this going on. Obama is just one more dupe in this whole thing.
Fourth graders in Dupo Illinois are reading a biography of Barack Obama by author Jane Sutcliffe. The book teaches children that white voters rejected Obama because of race.
The book – brought to the attention this week of those on the “Moms Against Duncan – MAD” Facebook page, goes on to say white Americans were hesitant to vote for a black president, and that Obama pushed the race issue to bring the nation together.
“But some people said Americans weren’t ready for that much change. Sure Barack was a nice fellow, they said. But white voters would never vote for a black president. Other angry voices were raised. Barack’s former pastor called the country a failure. God would damn the United States for mistreating its black citizens, he said.”
The Bluffview Elementary students were told the book’s content would be tested for grades. That brought outrage among parents just across the Mississippi River from St. Louis, one of the “MAD” moms reported.
This biography of America’s 44th president, entitled “Barack Obama,” is written by Jane Sutcliffe and published by Lerner. The book is part of Scholastic’s “Reading Counts” program acceptable to the controversial Common Core curriculum standards.
A woman who calls herself “Lucy” called in to News Radio KLBJ 590 AM/99.7 FM in Austin, Texas, to gloat about how she and other welfare recipients just sit at home instead of work.
Below is a transcript I took from audio of the radio show.
Host: “Lucy, you’re on KLBJ.”
Lucy: “Hi, how are you. I just want to say while workers out there are people like you that are preaching morality at people like me living on welfare, can you really blame us? I mean, I get to sit home, I get to go visit my friends all day, I even get to smoke weed. And I’ve seen people that I know are illegal immigrants that don’t contribute to society, we’re still gonna get paid. Our checks are coming in the mail every month and it’s gonna be on time, and we get subsidized housing. We even get presents delivered for our kids at Christmas. Why should I work? So you know what? Y’all get the benefit of … erh … you know, saying ‘Oh, look at me. I’m a better person,’ but when y’all come back how y’all a better person cause y’all go to work, we’re the ones getting paid! So can you really blame us?”
Host: “Are you talking on an Obama phone as well?”
Lucy: “Yeah, I get an Obama phone.”
Host: “How much … have you added up the total of what you get each month, Lucy?”
Lucy: “No, I haven’t.”
Host: “But what do you get? Just quickly go down the list of the things you get from taxpayers.”
Lucy: “Well, I only pay $50 a month for rent. It’s supposed to be $600 something, so there’s $550 right there. I get $425 a month for food stamps. I get $150 month to pay my electric bill. I get a cell phone and then I get $100 a month paid towards for water.”
Host: “And that’s from the City of Austin?”
Lucy: “Yes.”
Host: “Do you have any kids, Lucy?”
Lucy: “I have three kids.”
Host: “Does your husband work?”
Lucy: “He’ll work every now and then. Part time. But he doesn’t work very much. He doesn’t feel the need for it.”
Host: “Does he get benefits as well?”
Lucy: “Yeah. Those are family benefits.”
Host: “And Lucy is asking everyone listening right now why should she get up and drive in the rain to work all day and pay taxes when she can get those kinds of help from those who’re going to work. Lucy, don’t you feel guilty about gaming the system and taking everybody else’s money just because you can lay down and watch TV on Riverside Drive every day of the year and smoke wee.”
Lucy: “But you know, if somebody offered you a million dollars, no strings attached, would you walk away from it?”
At that point, I stopped listening and stopped transcribing.
Not only do I blame welfare sloths like Lucy, I blame every politician who panders to the Lucys and who has helped in the creation of America’s obscene and utterly unsustainable Welfare State.
Oprah Winfrey, one of the wealthiest people in the world, is throwing the race card again.
During an interview with the BBC Friday, she not only said that President Obama is treated with disrespect because he’s black, but also that entire generations of racists are going to have to die for racism to end (video follows with transcript and commentary):
WILL GOMPERTZ, BBC: The issue of the civil rights movement, and the way that black people around the world are treated, particularly I suppose in, around the world…
OPRAH WINFREY: Around the world.
GOMPERTZ: Around the world. Look at place like Russia, it’s, you know…
WINFREY: Around the world.
GOMPERTZ: So is this, is this, I suppose from a movie point of view, what the movie and the messages hold and the other movies we were discussing, and “Scottsboro Boys,” are these historical comments or are we still looking at a contemporary issue?
WINFREY: Good question. Well phrased. Good job. It would be foolish to not recognize that we have evolved in that we’re not still facing the same kind of terrorism against black people en masse as was displayed with the Scottsboro boys. It’s gotten better. Are there still places where people are terrorized because of the color of their skin, because of the color of their black skin? Yes. But there are laws that have allowed us to progress beyond what we saw in the Scottsboro boys and beyond the even the prejudice we see in “The Butler.”
Notice that Winfrey added "color of their black skin." Why not just leave it as "color of their skin?"
Why do folks such as her only see racism through the prism of how blacks are treated? By looking at the problem so narrowly, doesn't it make matters worse?
We are by far the most diverse nation in the world containing more ethnic and religious groups than any other on the planet.
Likely each of them has at times rightly or wrongly felt mistreated for the color of their skin or their religious beliefs.
When we as a nation look at this problem more honestly and not just as it pertains to one group, racism will have a chance of being solved.
Unfortunately, Winfrey has another solution:
GOMPERTZ: Are you saying problem solved?
WINFREY: I’m saying problem not solved. I’m saying that, you know, that’s the beauty of a film like “The Butler,” and it’s the beauty of a film like “12 Years a Slave,” and it’s the beauty of what we’re seeing on stage with “Scottsboro Boys” is that it allows people to see where the root of the problem started. It allows people to see, “Oh, that’s where it all started, this is how far we’ve come, and now this is how much farther we need to go.” Of course problem is not solved. You know, as long as people can be judged by the color of their skin, problem’s not solved. As long as there are people who still, there’s a whole generation – I say this, you know, I said this, you know, for apartheid South Africa, I said this for my own, you know, community in the south - there are still generations of people, older people, who were born and bred and marinated in it, in that prejudice and racism, and they just have to die.
So in Winfrey's view, it's older white people that are the problem, and once they die, racism ends.
Yet three months ago, she said of the George Zimmerman verdict, "It's ridiculous to look at that case and not to think that race was involved."
Zimmerman's only 30 years old and is Hispanic.
It is patently absurd to suggest that racism is caused by old white people when racism and religious bigotry cut across all generations and ethnicities.
But folks such as Winfrey don't want to look at it that way, for they have a different agenda:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
GOMPERTZ: Do you think, has it ever crossed your mind that some of the treatment of Obama and the challenges he’s faced and some of the reporting he’s received is because he’s an African-American, and if he wasn’t an African-American, if he was a white guy, those wouldn’t have happened, he wouldn’t have been treated in quite the same way, he wouldn’t have to deal with quite the same confrontations?
Some question, huh? You'd think Obama was the first president to ever have challenges and confrontations. Was Gompertz on another planet when George W. Bush was regularly being attacked by his opponents?
With the race card nicely placed on the tee, Winfrey predictably hit it a long way:
WINFREY: Has it ever crossed my mind? It’s crossed my mind probably as many times as it’s crossed your mind. Probably it’s crossed my mind more times than it’s crossed your mind. Just the level of disrespect. When the Senator yelled out, “You’re a liar.” Remember that? Yeah, I think that there is a level of disrespect for the office that occurs, and that occurs in some cases and maybe even many cases because he’s African-American.
What Winfrey conveniently ignores is that she endorsed and campaigned for Obama BECAUSE he was an African-American. He wouldn't have gotten her support or been elected if he wasn't.
More importantly, if he was just some white guy from Chicago that nobody had ever heard of, he never would have beaten Hillary Clinton in 2008.
How sad that she forgets that.
But that's not the saddest part about folks like Winfrey throwing the race card this way.
What's sadder is that as an African-American woman that has attained a level of success and notoriety greater than 99.99 percent of the people that have or ever will walk on this planet, she could be a positive role model concerning racism rather than helping to fuel it.
Why doesn't someone of Winfrey's obvious intellectual prowess understand that?
Imagine how much better it would have been for all Americans including blacks if she answered Gompertz's racially charged question this way:
Is some of the treatment of Obama because he's an African-American? Maybe some. But I think that's exaggerated. The President of the United States is the most powerful person on the planet receiving greater scrutiny than any other. As a result, he's challenged by people on both sides of the aisle, and that's a good thing because it acts to prevent him or her from becoming too powerful.
Unlike other nations, our President is not a king or dictator, and although many claim the treatment of Obama is harsher because he's black, I would say that for the most part, he isn't being treated any differently than George W. Bush before him or Bill Clinton before him. In fact, I would make the case that because he's black, he's been treated far better by most of the media than any President in my lifetime.
So let's not be so quick to throw the race card all because Obama has his critics. That comes with the territory, and if you don't have big enough shoulders to take the hits, you should have never campaigned for the job.
Imagine the headlines and the positive example Winfrey could have set by telling people the truth.
Is that just too difficult for her? Doesn't she know that every time she dishonestly throws the race card, she's undermining a solution?
Oh. That's right. Her solution is that generations of racists have to die to solve the problem.
Unfortunately, with folks like her out there fanning the fires of discontent, they're inculcating new generations with racist thoughts thereby making it necessary for A LOT of generations to die off before this problem ever gets solved.
How truly unfortunate for our nation.
President Barack Obama awards to Oprah Winfrey the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2013, during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci)
Darlene Superville, The Associated Press
Published Wednesday, November 20, 2013 1:28PM EST
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama opened a day of tributes to former President John F. Kennedy on Wednesday by bestowing the Presidential Medal of Freedom on prominent Americans, 50 years after Kennedy was assassinated weeks short of the medal's first award ceremony.
Obama presented the medal -- the highest award the U.S. gives a civilian -- to entertainer Oprah Winfrey, former President Bill Clinton, and leaders from the worlds of sports, entertainment, science and public service. The late Sally Ride, the first American woman in space, was awarded the medal posthumously.
Chelsea Schilling is a commentary editor and staff writer for WND and a proud U.S. Army veteran. She has also worked as a news producer at USA Radio Network and as a news reporter for the Sacramento Union.
“You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers! You’re gonna have to kill some of their babies!”
Those were the words of Minister King Samir Shabazz, also known as Maurice Heath, the New Black Panther Party’s Philadelphia leader.
Shabazz is the same man the Obama administration Department of Justice refused to prosecute after he was filmed on Election Day 2008 with Jerry Jackson wearing paramilitary uniforms, carrying a nightstick and blocking a doorway to a polling location to intimidate voters.
The following YouTube video posted by Naked Emperor News shows his statements during a National Geographic special on the New Black Panthers:
“I hate white people – all of them! Every last iota of a cracker, I hate ‘em,” Shabazz shouts into a megaphone on a crowded sidewalk. “Through South Street with white, dirty, cracker whore [expletive] on our arms. And we call ourselves black men with African garb on.”
Then Shabazz spotted a black man embracing a white woman.
“What the hell is wrong with you, black man?” he shouted into his megaphone. “You [inaudible] with a white girl on your damn arm!
“You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers! You’re gonna have to kill some of their babies!”
In a 2008 interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer, Sabazz said, “I’m about the total destruction of white people. I’m about the total liberation of black people. I hate white people. I hate my enemy. …”
National Geographic describes the New Black Panther Party as “a militant hate group headquartered in Washington, D.C., that seeks to redefine the black struggle for equality and demand liberation from what it sees as white supremacy.”
The party has marched on Independence Day, dragging American flags through the streets, trampling the flag on the ground and setting it on fire. The following video shows members of a New York chapter protesting celebration of Independence Day at an event called “4th of U-lie” on July 5, 2008. Members say the day is not a celebration of independence for blacks.
As WND reported, one poll watcher called police on Nov. 4, 2008, after he reportedly saw Shabazz brandishing a nightstick to threaten voters just 15 feet outside a Philadelphia polling location. Shabazz stood in front of the building with Jackson.
“As I walked up, they closed ranks, next to each other,” the witness told Fox News at the time. “So I walked directly in between them, went inside and found the poll watchers. They said they’d been here for about an hour. And they told us not to come outside because a black man is going to win this election no matter what.”
He said the man with a nightstick told him, “‘We’re tired of white supremacy,’ and he starts tapping the nightstick in his hand. At which point I said, ‘OK, we’re not going to get in a fistfight right here,’ and I called the police.”
According to various witnesses, the men also hurled racial epithets such as “white devil” and “cracker” and told voters they should prepare to be “ruled by the black man.” One person said the men called a Republican poll worker a “race traitor” and told him there would be “hell to pay.”
The following is a YouTube video of the Election Day incident:
Career Department of Justice attorneys headed by voting-section chief Chris Coates filed a case under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 against four defendants, accused the men of attempting to engage in, and engaging in, both voter intimidation and intimidation of individuals aiding voters.
The original Department of Justice complaint named Shabazz, Jackson and two other defendants: the New Black Panther Party and its chairman, Malik Zulu Shabazz, who planned deployment of 300 members on Election Day.
A federal judge ordered default judgments against the New Black Panthers after party members refused to appear in court. The DOJ trial team had won its case.
Even though DOJ lawyers had won, the Obama administration suddenly ordered it dropped – against advice of prosecutors who brought the case.
In April, the New Black Panther Party released a statement blaming Republicans, “tea-party racists” and “right-wing circles” for complaining and harassing the organization.
“Our only connection to President Obama is the common color of our skin,” it states. “The same dog that bites President Obama bites us too. So I say, if you were wise, you would leave Obama alone as well because he is your last chance to save your country. You are mad because a black man has been elected to the presidency, and that affronts your oversized ego.”
Christian Adams, a former DOJ attorney who quit his job after over the Obama administration’s refusal to prosecute the Panthers, claims the administration has ordered the DOJ not to pursue voting-rights cases against black people. He said the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is investigating the dismissal, subpoenaed him and Coates, but their DOJ superiors ordered them not to testify – a violation of federal law.
“The case was dismissed on May 15, [2009],” Adams told Fox News. “All the charges were dropped against three of the defendants and the final order against one of the defendants was a timid restraint.”
Only one of four defendants, Samir Shabazz, faced punishment: a temporary injunction against appearing at Philadelphia polls with a weapon. The department stopped at the injunction and didn’t call for criminal penalties, monetary damages or other civil penalties.
“We were ordered to dismiss the case,” Adams said. “I mean, we were told drop the charges against the New Black Panther Party.”
The Department of Justice said it made a decision based on the evidence that the case could not go forward.
As WND reported, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has suggested it is now expanding its review of claims that the DOJ implemented a ban on prosecuting defendants who are black.
At a hearing in Washington this week, Adams testified that staffers throughout the department have subscribed for years to the notion that the DOJ’s primary responsibility is to protect the voting rights of minority voters, not whites. He added that recent Obama administration DOJ appointees have reinforced this notion by making such racial discrimination a formal departmental policy.
According to Adams, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandez, an Obama appointee at the top of the department, announced at a policy meeting that “the voting section will not bring any other cases against blacks and other minorities.”
Meanwhile, Pajamas Media reports that three more former DOJ officials are stepping forward to support Adams’ testimony. According to the report, the former employees have “expressed a willingness to go on record regarding Adams’ professionalism, excellent performance and outstanding record of enforcing the law without bias.”
Pajamas Media adds, “Additionally, they would like to corroborate Adams’ statements about the DOJ” and even offer their own accounts of purported DOJ hostility to “race-neutral law enforcement.”
Asheesh Agarwal, former deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division, worked with Adams on several cases. He called Adams a “model attorney who vigorously enforced federal voting-rights laws on behalf of all voters, without respect to race or ideology.”
Mark Corallo, former DOJ director of public affairs, added: “I am not surprised that the Department is attacking J. Christian Adams. The Civil Rights Division attorneys have no interest in the rule of law as written and passed by Congress – the New Black Panther case is glaring proof that the Division has an agenda. If Congress was truly interested in oversight, there would be hearings on this case and others.”
Finally, Robert Driscoll, former deputy assistant attorney general who knew Adams, told Pajamas Media:
If this is indeed the view of senior career DOJ staff – that after reviewing the facts of the New Black Panther case and the video, current laws against voter intimidation provide no ability for the DOJ to properly bring an action against the New Black Panther members shown on video and mentioned in the lawsuit — then Congress needs to have a conversation with Attorney General Holder about whether the problem lies with the Voting Rights Act itself, or with those whose job it is to enforce it.
Career Department of Justice attorneys headed by voting-section chief Chris Coates filed a case under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 against four defendants, accused the men of attempting to engage in, and engaging in, both voter intimidation and intimidation of individuals aiding voters.
The original Department of Justice complaint named Shabazz, Jackson and two other defendants: the New Black Panther Party and its chairman, Malik Zulu Shabazz, who planned deployment of 300 members on Election Day.
A federal judge ordered default judgments against the New Black Panthers after party members refused to appear in court. The DOJ trial team had won its case.
Even though DOJ lawyers had won, the Obama administration suddenly ordered it dropped – against advice of prosecutors who brought the case.
In April, the New Black Panther Party released a statement blaming Republicans, “tea-party racists” and “right-wing circles” for complaining and harassing the organization.
“Our only connection to President Obama is the common color of our skin,” it states. “The same dog that bites President Obama bites us too. So I say, if you were wise, you would leave Obama alone as well because he is your last chance to save your country. You are mad because a black man has been elected to the presidency, and that affronts your oversized ego.”
Christian Adams, a former DOJ attorney who quit his job after over the Obama administration’s refusal to prosecute the Panthers, claims the administration has ordered the DOJ not to pursue voting-rights cases against black people. He said the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is investigating the dismissal, subpoenaed him and Coates, but their DOJ superiors ordered them not to testify – a violation of federal law.
“The case was dismissed on May 15, [2009],” Adams told Fox News. “All the charges were dropped against three of the defendants and the final order against one of the defendants was a timid restraint.”
Only one of four defendants, Samir Shabazz, faced punishment: a temporary injunction against appearing at Philadelphia polls with a weapon. The department stopped at the injunction and didn’t call for criminal penalties, monetary damages or other civil penalties.
“We were ordered to dismiss the case,” Adams said. “I mean, we were told drop the charges against the New Black Panther Party.”
The Department of Justice said it made a decision based on the evidence that the case could not go forward.
As WND reported, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has suggested it is now expanding its review of claims that the DOJ implemented a ban on prosecuting defendants who are black.
At a hearing in Washington this week, Adams testified that staffers throughout the department have subscribed for years to the notion that the DOJ’s primary responsibility is to protect the voting rights of minority voters, not whites. He added that recent Obama administration DOJ appointees have reinforced this notion by making such racial discrimination a formal departmental policy.
According to Adams, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandez, an Obama appointee at the top of the department, announced at a policy meeting that “the voting section will not bring any other cases against blacks and other minorities.”
Meanwhile, Pajamas Media reports that three more former DOJ officials are stepping forward to support Adams’ testimony. According to the report, the former employees have “expressed a willingness to go on record regarding Adams’ professionalism, excellent performance and outstanding record of enforcing the law without bias.”
Pajamas Media adds, “Additionally, they would like to corroborate Adams’ statements about the DOJ” and even offer their own accounts of purported DOJ hostility to “race-neutral law enforcement.”
Asheesh Agarwal, former deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division, worked with Adams on several cases. He called Adams a “model attorney who vigorously enforced federal voting-rights laws on behalf of all voters, without respect to race or ideology.”
Mark Corallo, former DOJ director of public affairs, added: “I am not surprised that the Department is attacking J. Christian Adams. The Civil Rights Division attorneys have no interest in the rule of law as written and passed by Congress – the New Black Panther case is glaring proof that the Division has an agenda. If Congress was truly interested in oversight, there would be hearings on this case and others.”
Finally, Robert Driscoll, former deputy assistant attorney general who knew Adams, told Pajamas Media:
If this is indeed the view of senior career DOJ staff – that after reviewing the facts of the New Black Panther case and the video, current laws against voter intimidation provide no ability for the DOJ to properly bring an action against the New Black Panther members shown on video and mentioned in the lawsuit — then Congress needs to have a conversation with Attorney General Holder about whether the problem lies with the Voting Rights Act itself, or with those whose job it is to enforce it.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nikita Khrushchev:"We will bury you"
"Your grandchildren will live under communism."
“You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ."
We’ll so weaken your To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. like overripe fruit into our hands."
March 4, 2013: Weld County Sheriff John Cooke, center, backed by a group of fellow sheriffs, testifies against proposed gun control legislation in the Colorado Legislature, at the State Capitol, in Denver.AP
DENVER – A federal judge ruled Wednesday that Colorado sheriffs suing the state over new firearm restrictions don't have standing to proceed with the case as a group, but the legal battle is far from over.
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Marcia Krieger in Denver doesn't stop the lawsuit because 21 other plaintiffs who are suing do have standing. The court will still consider whether universal background checks and a ban on ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds are constitutional, the judge said.
"At this juncture, the court is not even considering whether the challenged portions of the laws are constitutional," Krieger said.
Sheriffs in most of Colorado's 64 counties filed the lawsuit in May, saying the new regulations violate the Second Amendment. The sheriffs are elected and represent rural, gun-friendly parts of the state.
In her ruling, Krieger said sheriffs can still choose to join the suit in an individual capacity, and they'll have 14 days to make that decision. But they cannot, as a group, sue the state in their official capacities.
"If individual sheriffs wish to protect individual rights or interests they may do so ... however, the sheriffs have confused their individual rights and interests with those of the county sheriff's office," Krieger said.
The remaining plaintiffs include individuals and various gun groups.
The laws that took effect July 1 were among a package of gun control legislation passed in response to mass shootings last year at a suburban Denver movie theater and a Connecticut elementary school.
The laws sparked a furor from gun rights activists and Republican lawmakers who unanimously opposed the legislation. The laws also prompted the successful recall of two Democratic state senators in September, and a third senator resigned Wednesday while signatures to force another recall were still being collected.
Krieger also ruled in favor of part of the technical guidance that the state offered to implement the law when it comes to what it means for a magazine to be "readily convertible." The guidance outlined that magazines that have removable baseplates won't be considered part of ban and won't be seen as being adaptable to hold more rounds than what the law allows.
Other technical guidance the state offered can still be challenged, Krieger ruled.
"We are pleased that the court recognized that many of the plaintiffs had no standing to bring this case and that our interpretation of the law is proper," said Carolyn Tyler, a spokeswoman with the Colorado attorney general's office, which is representing the state in the lawsuit.
"We hope to have the important constitutional question that remains resolved quickly and properly," Tyler said.
Richard Westfall, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, said he was heartened that the judge will allow the sheriffs to participate in the lawsuit as individuals if they want.
He also said he hopes the laws can still be overturned.
"The two laws are still subject to being challenged on constitutional grounds," Westfall said.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nikita Khrushchev:"We will bury you"
"Your grandchildren will live under communism."
“You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ."
We’ll so weaken your To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. like overripe fruit into our hands."
Re: Will America Break Up?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by American Patriot
Bookmarks