WHO OWNS U, BABY!

To know who rules u – be aware of who u are not allowed to criticize!

“Wake Up America!” by Jon Mc Naughton

William J. Bennett, Host of Bill Bennett’s Morning in America Show, gave the following perspective on Donald Trump – very interesting.

What I See Happening In a Trump Presidency
By Bill Bennett

December 2015
“They will kill him before they let him be president. It could be a Republican or a Democrat that instigates the shutting up of Trump.
Don’t be surprised if Trump has an accident. Some people are getting very nervous: Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Jon Corzine, to name just a few.
It’s about the unholy dynamics between big government, big business, and big media. They all benefit by the billions of dollars from this partnership, and it’s in all of their interests to protect one another. It’s one for all and all for one.
It’s a heck of a filthy relationship that makes everyone filthy rich, everyone except the American people. We get ripped off. We’re the patsies. But for once, the powerful socialist cabal and the corrupt crony capitalists are scared. The over-the-top reaction to Trump by politicians of both parties, the media, and the biggest corporations of America has been so swift and insanely angry that it suggests they are all threatened and frightened.
Donald Trump can self-fund. No matter how much they say to the contrary, the media, business, and political elite understand that Trump is no joke. He could actually win and upset their nice cozy apple cart.
It’s no coincidence that everyone has gotten together to destroy The Donald. It’s because most of the other politicians are part of the a good old boys club. They talk big, but they won’t change a thing. They are all beholden to big-money donors. They are all owned by lobbyists, unions, lawyers, gigantic environmental organizations, and multinational corporations – like Big Pharmacy or Big Oil. Or they are owned lock, stock, and barrel by foreigners like George Soros owns Obama or foreign governments own Hillary and their Clinton Foundation donations.
These run-of-the-mill establishment politicians are all puppets owned by big money. But there’s one man who isn’t beholden to anyone. There’s one man who doesn’t need foreigners, or foreign governments, or George Soros, or the United Auto Workers, or the teacher’s union, or the Service Employees International Union, or the Bar Association to fund his campaign.
Billionaire tycoon and maverick Donald Trump doesn’t need anyone’s help. That means he doesn’t care what the media says. He doesn’t care what the corporate elites think. That makes him very dangerous to the entrenched interests. That makes Trump a huge threat to those people. Trump can ruin everything for the bribed politicians and their spoiled slave masters.
Don’t you ever wonder why the GOP has never tried to impeach Obama? Don’t you wonder why John Boehner and Mitch McConnell talk a big game, but never actually try to stop Obama? Don’t you wonder why Congress holds the purse strings, yet has never tried to de-fund Obamacare or Obama’s clearly illegal executive action on amnesty for illegal aliens? Bizarre, right? It defies logic, right?
First, I’d guess many key Republicans are being bribed. Secondly, I believe many key Republicans are being blackmailed. Whether they are having affairs, or secretly gay, or stealing taxpayer money, the National Security Agency knows everything.
Ask former House Speaker Dennis Hastert about that. The government even knew he was withdrawing large sums of his own money from his own bank account. The NSA, the SEC, the IRS, and all the other three-letter government agencies are watching every Republican political leader. They surveil everything. Thirdly, many Republicans are petrified of being called racists, so they are scared to ever criticize Obama or call out his crimes, let alone demand his impeachment. Fourth , why rock the boat? After defeat or retirement, if you’re a good old boy, you’ve got a $5 million-per-year lobbying job waiting. The big-money interests have the system gamed. Win or lose, they win.
But Trump doesn’t play by any of these rules. Trump breaks up this nice, cozy relationship between big government, big media, and big business. All the rules are out the window if Trump wins the Presidency. The other politicians will protect Obama and his aides but not Trump. Remember: Trump is the guy who publicly questioned Obama’s birth certificate. He questioned Obama’s college records and how a mediocre student got into an Ivy League university. Now, he’s doing something no Republican has the chutzpah to do. He’s questioning our relationship with Mexico; he’s questioning why the border is wide open; he’s questioning why no wall has been built across the border; he’s questioning if allowing millions of illegal aliens into America is in our best interests; he’s questioning why so many illegal aliens commit violent crimes, yet are not deported; and he’s questioning why our trade deals with Mexico, Russia and China are so bad.
Trump has the audacity to ask out loud why American workers always get the short end of the stick. Good question! I’m certain Trump will question what happened to the almost billion dollars given in a rigged no-bid contract to college friends of Michelle Obama at foreign companies to build the defective Obamacare website. By the way, that tab is now up to $5 billion. Trump will ask if Obamacare’s architects can be charged with fraud for selling it by lying. Trump will investigate Obama’s widespread IRS conspiracy, not to mention Obama’s college records. Trump will prosecute Clinton and Obama for fraud committed to cover up Benghazi before the election. How about the fraud committed by employees of the Labor Department when they made up dramatic job numbers in the last jobs report before the 2012 election?
Obama, the multinational corporations and the media need to stop Trump. They recognize this could get out of control. If left unchecked, telling the raw truth and asking questions everyone else is afraid to ask, Trump could wake a sleeping giant. Trump’s election would be a nightmare. Obama has committed many crimes. No one else but Trump would dare to prosecute. He will not hesitate. Once Trump gets in and gets a look at the cooked books and Obama’s records, the game is over. The jig is up. The goose is cooked. Holder could wind up in prison. Jarrett could wind up in prison. Obama bundler Corzine could wind up in prison for losing $1.5 billion of customer money. Clinton could wind up in jail for deleting 32,000 emails or for accepting bribes from foreign governments while Secretary of State, or for misplacing $6 billion as the head of the State Department, or for lying about Benghazi. The entire upper level management of the IRS could wind up in prison.
Obamacare will be de-funded and dismantled. Obama himself could wind up ruined, his legacy in tatters. Trump will investigate. Trump will prosecute. Trump will go after everyone involved. That’s why the dogs of hell have been unleashed on Donald Trump.
Yes, it’s become open season on Donald Trump. The left and the right are determined to attack his policies, harm his businesses, and, if possible, even keep him out of the coming debates. But they can’t silence him. And they sure can’t intimidate him. The more they try, the more the public will realize that he’s the one telling the truth.”

 

William John “Bill” Bennett (born July 31, 1943) is an American conservative pundit, politician, and political theorist, who served as Secretary of Education from 1985 to 1988 under President Ronald Reagan. He also held the post of Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under George H. W. Bush. In 2000, he co-founded K12, a publicly traded online education company.

Bennett is the host of Morning in America, a nationally syndicated radio program produced and distributed by Salem Communications. The show airs live weekdays from 6 to 9 a.m. Eastern Time; it is one of the only syndicated conservative talk shows in the morning drive time slot. However, its clearances are limited due to a preference for local shows in this slot, and the show gets most of its clearances on Salem-owned outlets. Morning in America is also carried on Sirius Satellite Radio, on Channel 144, also known as the Patriot Channel[8]

In 2008, Bennett became the host of a CNN weekly talk show, Beyond the Politics. The show did not have a long run, but Bennett remained a CNN contributor until he was let go in 2013 by then-new CNN president, Jeff Zucker.

Advertisements

“I Stand With You” As The Whole World Crumbles!!!

This is a well researched essay and worth the time to read! It will make you think and possibly scare the complacency out of you! It is posted at – http://www.wolkeworks.com/I_Stand_With_You.html where there are many other articles worth reading.

The photos are my additions.

988424_10152052669055197_3343123465712111828_n

“Obama’s victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle. Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of a mole who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old ‘revolutionary mole’ not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through.” – Frank Chapman of the Communist Party of the USA’s newspaper, People’s Weekly World on January 12, 2008 after Obama’s Iowa Caucus victory.
Just who is Barack Hussein Obama? Is he just another “progressive” member of the Democratic Party? Or could he be something worse, a conscious agent of a foreign power? Does he have a secret agenda to harm the United States? Or is he simply someone whose well- meaning policies have turned out to be antithetical to the interests of the American people? What follows is necessarily speculative, but if you connect the dots, the case should do more than raise eyebrows.
If you look at the rise of Barack Obama from obscure community organizer to President of the United States you have to be amazed at the speed in which he climbed to the heights of power and the total lack of qualifications he exhibited before attaining the highest office. You also have to wonder about the people in his past and their associations.
As many people know by now, Obama was the product of Stanley Ann Dunham, a girl who was far left in her politics and somehow enamored with dark skin men who were anti-American. Her parents were apparently also far left anti-Americans and they moved to a suburb of Seattle, Washington, so that their young girl could attend Mercer Island High School. It was run by a communist who also ran the “little red church on the hill”, a Unitarian church that the Dunham family attended.
Dunham allegedly married Barack Obama, Sr., a student from Kenya whom she met in Russian classes at the University of Hawaii. About five months after their alleged marriage (there are no records of it available), Stanley Ann gave birth to the man we know as Barack
                           
The Psychopath?
Hussein Obama, but who was called Barry in his youth. The two, Stanley and Barack Sr., never lived together and almost immediately after giving birth, Stanley Ann left to attend the University of Washington in Seattle. Obama, Sr., left to attend Harvard University not too long after that. So young Obama never saw his father until he was ten years old in 1971 and that was a short visit. Meanwhile, Stanley Ann found another third world, leftist husband, Lolo Soetoro, from Indonesia and went to Jakarta to live with him, taking along young Barry. During his stint in Indonesia, Barry attended a school where he was listed as a Muslim and where he liked to attend Koran classes. One of his former classmates describes him then as a devout Muslim.
In any case, when Lolo started to work for an American oil company and actually became pro-American, Stanley Ann sent young Barack back to Hawaii to ensure he would be under the guidance of her appropriately anti-American parents.
In due course, Barry’s grandfather, also named Stanley Dunham, decided that the young lad needed a black male role model and mentor and sent the 10 year old to be guided by his friend, Frank Marshall Davis, a black member of the Communist Party, poet, pornographer, bisexual pedophile and sexual predator. Barry remained under the influence of Davis until he left for college at age 18.
There are reasons to believe that Davis may have actually been Obama’s father. In one of his books, Davis describes a young white girl named Ann as one of his frequent sex partners, and Obama looks more like Davis than he does Barack, Sr. (For one thing, Obama has a lot of facial skin tags as did Davis.) Likewise, Davis had pictures of a nude girl that closely resemble Stanley Ann, although who she actually was has not been proven. Perhaps that’s the reason Barack Obama, Sr., never showed that much interest in his son but Davis did. According to one theory, Barack Sr. was allegedly persuaded to provide a name for the infant in return for extending his visa in the United States. In any case, young Obama was handed over to Davis for mentoring.
It was during this period that Barry attended an elite Honolulu private school, Punahou, noted for its international students and, according to some, an anti-American ideology. Considering that Obama was schooled as a Muslim in Indonesia and at an international school during his formative years, where and when was he taught to think of himself as an American?
While at Punahou, he started out well but soon saw his academic achievements deteriorate, possibly due to his hanging out with the “Choom gang”, a sort of marijuana smokers club. That was not surprising since Davis was heavily into drinking and drug use. What other influences Davis had on young Obama are not readily apparent, although since Davis was into various sexual perversions, perhaps he influenced the child’s views on sexuality. This was a man who took the young boy to bars to drink booze, smoke pot, and watch pornographic cartoons being projected on the walls. Young Obama spent a lot of his youth doing drugs and drinking booze. Moreover, in a poem Obama wrote about Davis, he mentioned the amber stain they both had on their shorts. Was this a reference to a sexual relationship? In later life, various people would accuse Obama of being bisexual and a member of a gay men’s club in Chicago. One thing we can be certain of is that young Barry was indoctrinated with communism by Davis and probably his grandfather, Stanley.

davis ann barry s
Barry went to Occidental College, noted as the Moscow of California, where he was described by one of his associates at the time, Jim Drew, as not just sympathetic to communism, but an ardent communist revolutionary. This is when he changed his name to Barack Hussein Obama even though he had probably been adopted in Indonesia as Barry Soetoro and may well have been a citizen of that country. His roommates and friends there included Pakistanis Wahid Hamid and Mohamed Hasan Chandoo. After Occidental, Obama allegedly made a trip to Pakistan in 1981.
What’s interesting is that Obama never mentioned this Pakistan trip in either of his autobiographies, nor did he apparently mention it to anyone else until telling the press in April 2008 that he knew more about foreign policy than John McCain and Hillary Clinton because he had visited Pakistan and knew the difference between Sunni and Shia Muslims. (That was an astoundingly arrogant and foolish remark, but that’s Obama.) Apparently, Obama didn’t want the trip to be known, which is quite suspicious. So why mention it then? Perhaps because the previous month, March 2008, three contract employees at the State Department were caught looking at Obama, McCain and Hillary Clinton’s passports. The firm one of the employees worked for, Analysis Corp., was headed by John O. Brennan who later became Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counter-TerrorismandeventuallyheadoftheCIA. Sowhyhad Obama never mentioned the trip to Pakistan? And why did he mention it just after someone who worked for Brennan was caught looking at his passport file? Were McCain and Clinton included just to confuse who the real target was?
One possibility is that the passport was being altered by the employee either to add, remove or replace information. What if the reason Obama never mentioned Pakistan is that he never actually went to Pakistan? All we have is Obama’s word for it that he visited Pakistan since his passport is not available. What if he went somewhere else in 1981? What if he went to the Soviet Union or some other east bloc country for training and that information had to be expunged and replaced by a cover story? If you look at the trade craft of Soviet moles and American traitors, they typically go overseas to meet their KGB handlers for instructions, which is why overseas travel is carefully scrutinized by those granting security clearances. Obama would never qualify for a security clearance, given his background and unexplained overseas travel.
Interestingly, Obama has gone overseas just before each major change in his life. And those changes were step ups in his status and ambition. In 1981, it was just before transferring from Occidental to Columbia. In 1988, he went to Europe and Kenya for several weeks just before heading to Harvard Law School. In 2006, he visited Kenya as a senator just before announcing his candidacy for president. And in 2008, he toured Europe as a candidate just before being elected president.
Is there a reason to suspect Obama may have become a mole? Aside from his communist revolutionary beliefs at the time, consider that two years after graduating from Columbia in New York City, Obama moved to Chicago in 1985, the previous home of his mentor Frank Marshall Davis, to become a community organizer. Obama’s ostensible reason for moving to Chicago was that he was inspired, he said, by the election of Harold Washington as mayor of that city. Washington was someone with close connections to the Communist Party and other socialist groups who backed him during his candidacy. So Obama said he applied for a job as community organizer with the Developing Communities Project.
Davis, who worked for most of his life in Chicago, was a member of the Communist Party USA, an organization actually funded from Moscow until 1989. In fact, the Communist Party USA was founded in Chicago back in 1919 and that city still has a very active Marxist culture. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of KGB records, we know that some of the Chicago Communists were actually on Moscow’s payroll as agents of influence. And we also know that the Communist Party USA branch in Hawaii when Davis was living there was actually run from Moscow. From his time in Chicago, Davis always followed the propaganda line from Moscow in his writings and newspaper columns, no matter how ridiculous.
Presumably, then, he was a Soviet agent. Suppose Obama was groomed by Davis from youth to become a mole? Suppose that Davis told Moscow about his young charge, a bright kid who was so damaged by abandonment, so desperate to be important, and so lacking in moral upbringing as to be perfectly pliable? And even more important, the kid was already brainwashed to be a communist.
This was a kid who asked his schoolmates whether they would rather be a wealthy businessman, a military general or president of the United States. And when one answered businessman and the other military general, Obama told them he’d rather be president because the military general would protect him and the businessman would give him money. This was a kid who was seriously conflicted about his racial identity and finally decided he was black, suggesting that his mother and grandparent’s whiteness was associated with negative emotions of worthlessness and abandonment, while Davis’s black skin was associated with acceptance. It’s also probably how he became extraordinarily narcissistic. Obama is someone who has serious psychological issues.
After returning from his trip to Pakistan or wherever it was he actually went, Barack transferred to Columbia University, another far left institution, in New York after two years at Occidental, presumably under either an affirmative action or foreign student program since it’s unlikely Barack’s grades were stellar at Occidental where he admits he didn’t really study. According to one person who was at Columbia at the same time as Obama, that university very seldom accepted transfers from other schools and those were only the cream of the crop. So why Obama? Did someone among the school’s many communist administrators and professors arrange it under instructions from Moscow?
At this time, Obama said his ambition while at Columbia was to be a novelist, although if he ever wrote anything fiction, aside from some bad poetry, it hasn’t been disclosed. Considering the acclaim his writing skills for “Dreams From My Father” garnered, you’d think there would be some fictional works the would-be novelist wrote. But “Dreams From My Father” is sheer poetry and there’s nothing Obama has ever written (and there’s actually not much that he has written at all) even close to it in style or technical brilliance. Obama’s poetry is nothing exceptional, for example, and his essays are clunkers. It’s widely believed that Bill Ayers wrote the book since it contains scenes and depictions found in Ayers’ own stories. Moreover, Ayers keeps insisting in public that he actually wrote “Dreams From My Father” and jokes that if anyone can prove it he’ll split the royalties. Maybe that’s why Obama actually majored in political science and international relations.

10448545_1508480722700121_7099040129296781988_o
Why Ayers would write an autobiography for Obama isn’t known, but clearly, it was that book that convinced many people that Obama is a genius despite no other accomplishments. It may be that if Obama was being groomed for high office, Ayers was recruited by Moscow to provide Obama with a stellar biography and reputation.
The reason for going to Columbia is unclear, but as a hotbed of Marxism, perhaps that attracted Barack. Or it could be that his Soviet handlers decided he needed better credentials for future work and Columbia is prestigious enough. At Columbia, it seems few people can remember knowing Barack Obama. We do know he lived off campus with Pakistani roommate Sohale Siddiqi just a few blocks from where Bill Ayers lived at the time and that he attended socialist conferences at Cooper Union. Among his professors that later became close to him at Columbia we can count Khalid Rashidi, a pro- Palestinian activist. Perhaps it’s Obama’s upbringing as a Muslim in Indonesia that attracted him to foreign Muslim friends and led to sympathy for Islamic causes.
In 1985, then, Obama arrived in Chicago where he came to work with the communist/socialist network. His entre was probably Frank Marshall Davis, who apparently knew most of the people who would eventually help young Obama. But Obama’s immediate reason for being in Chicago, as previously indicated, was to become director of Developing Communities Project, a church-based community organizing group that he made a separate non-profit in 1986. While working for them, he sent a letter to Chicago mayor Harold Washington in 1987 asking for an endorsement for his organization. He listed as members of his board such people as Black (third world, actually) Liberation Theologists Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger, as well as John Ayers, the brother of unrepentant terrorist, Bill Ayers. Obama also worked for the Gamaliel Foundation as a “consultant and trainer” in the tactics of Saul “The Red” Alinsky, the author of “Rules for Radicals” whose book is dedicated to Lucifer. On the board of Gamaliel was professor John L. McKnight, who taught Obama Alinsky tactics probably starting in 1982 when Obama was still at Columbia and an intern for Gamaliel. (McKnight’s organization recruited 20 interns in 1982 for staffing in several cities, including New York.)
In his 1995 memoir, Obama said he wanted to go to Harvard Law School to “learn power’s currency in all its intricacy,” with the goal of “making large-scale change” as a national politician. So Obama approached McKnight to write a letter of recommendation, which he did. Obama, who McKnight admitted was a poor student, also probably got letters of recommendation from Newton Minow (JFK’s head of the FCC) who was on the board of trustees at Northwestern University where McKnight was teaching, and whose daughter, Martha, was dean of Harvard Law School. Minow was also a senior lawyer at Sidley Austin law firm where Obama did internships at Martha’s recommendation. Was sending Obama to that law firm a way to connect him with his future handler, Valerie Jarrett? Jarrett did work there at the time. Another letter of recommendation probably came from Thomas Ayers, the father of William Ayers, who was also on the board of trustees with Minow. Why were all these people so interested in helping a man with no particular accomplishments, even academically, into Harvard Law?
The wealthy Thomas Ayers, CEO of Consolidated Edison and sometimes called the Godfather of Chicago Politics, may have helped finance Obama’s education. According to Thomas Ayers’ mailman, Allen Hulton, he met young Obama at the home of Thomas Ayers. “He was very polite, dressed nicely, but informally – slacks and a dress shirt – and he spoke with no accent. Immediately this young black man entered into a conversation with me. He told me he had taken the train out from Chicago and had come to thank the Ayers family personally for having helped him with his education. “Hulton remembers asking the young man what his plans were for the future. “He looked at me and told me he was going to be president of the United States,” Hulton says. “There was a little bit of a grin on his face when he said it – he sounded sure of himself, but not arrogant. I know how people will say things because they have an ambition, but it did not come across that way,” Hulton says. “It came across as if this young black male was telling me he was going to be president, almost as if it were a
statement of a scientific fact that had already been predetermined, as if his being president has already been pre-arranged.”
Hulton also said that Thomas Ayers once gave him a lecture on how the working man was being exploited by rich capitalists. Was Thomas Ayers a Marxist? It certainly seems so. Why did Thomas Ayers take an interest in Barack Obama? Probably because one of Ayers’ close friends was the ubiquitous Frank Marshall Davis. It seems reasonable that Davis recommended Obama to Ayers and Ayers probably introduced Obama to his son, William, the Marxist terrorist.
In 1988 Obama left to attend Harvard Law School but returned to Chicago to work at Sidley Austin law firm in the summer 1989 where Valerie Jarrett introduced him to Michelle Robinson, his immediate boss who later became his wife. Not surprisingly, Jarrett’s maternal grandfather, Robert Rochon Taylor, was a Communist Party member and friend of Frank Marshall Davis. Her father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, was also a communist and friend of Davis’s who apparently knew Khalid al-Mansour, formerly known as Donald Warden. Warden was a radical black power advocate and Marxist who was one of the “Chicago Eight” responsible for rioting during the 1968 Chicago Democratic Party convention.
Vernon Jarrett wrote an article in 1979 about al-Mansour, reporting that al-Mansour was asking rich Arabs to fund the education of black American kids, presumably to help induce them to become Muslims. So, perhaps Davis also prevailed upon his friend Vernon Jarrett to contact al-Mansour and recommend Obama as a candidate for that educational funding, especially since Obama was schooled in Islam while in Indonesia and his alleged Kenyan father’s family were Muslims. Sutton Percy, a New Yorker connected to Marxists there, said that al-Mansour asked him to write a letter of recommendation for Obama to Harvard Law, which Sutton did. Interestingly, in 1979, Obama was in Chicago. Did he meet with Vernon Jarrett or al- Mansour? My guess is that he did.
After law school, Valerie Jarrett initially worked for Mayor Harold Washington, another of Chicago’s communist officials who stocked his administration with communists and socialists. It was while she worked for Washington that she first hired Michelle Robinson who later married Barack Obama.
In 1991 Obama returned to Chicago after getting his law degree. He worked for ACORN’s Project Vote, and helped to elect another Chicago communist, Carol Moseley Braun, to the US Senate. In 1994, Obama became chief of staff for Alice Palmer in her run for a Congressional seat. Palmer was a communist and probably a paid agent of influence for the Soviet Union back in the 1980’s. In a 1995 party at the house of Bill Ayers to introduce Barack Obama’s entre into politics, Palmer anointed Obama as her heir to the Illinois Senate seat she was vacating. When Palmer’s Congressional bid fizzled, she wanted her old Illinois Senate seat back but Obama refused and had her disqualified on the ballot. Palmer, who fell out with Obama after that, later joined the socialist New Party of which Obama was also a member.
When Obama finally reached the White House, his closest advisor was Valerie Jarrett, who is still there and considered by some to be the actual power behind the throne who acts as Obama’s eyes and ears and, some say, brain. Perhaps her real mission is to keep an eye on Obama and direct policy. The other main advisor was David Axelrod who decamped for Chicago to run Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. Interestingly, Axelrod was mentored and taught politics by a member of the Communist Party USA, David Canter, who was probably a paid agent of the Soviet Union. Canter’s father Harry, was a committed communist who even moved his family to Moscow. When he returned to America he came to Chicago and worked, as you might have guessed, with Frank Marshall Davis.
So, to put it together, young Obama was more than likely turned into a communist by his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, and his family, and then sent to Occidental, known for its far left climate. Sometime during this period, Obama was probably officially recruited by the Soviet KGB to be a mole. His 1981 trip abroad was probably to meet his Soviet handler and get further instructions, including what to study and who to meet at Columbia. His first connection with the Chicago communist network was by applying for an internship with Gamaliel Foundation and so it was natural for Obama to relocate to the old home of his mentor and start making connections with radical Marxists.

In 1988 he was probably instructed to go to law school, presumably the best that would accept him, and Davis made sure his contacts wrote letters of recommendation. That the daughter of Thomas Ayers was dean of Harvard Law probably made him a shoo-in even if he didn’t have distinguished grades at Columbia. Before going to Harvard, Obama went overseas again and likely met his Soviet handler for further instructions, including that he should enter politics and possibly run for president. Ayers and the Saudis probably financed Obama’s time at Harvard.
Obama’s connection with the Saudis, Palestinians and other Muslims was also probably deemed a plus by the Soviets and one of the benefits of recruiting him. Some people think Obama is a closet Muslim while others think he’s an atheist who joined the Rev. Wright’s church to gain “street cred.” But being so supportive of Islam provides cover since Obama is seen as a Muslim tool, not that of the Russians.
It was Martha Minow who greased Obama’s way into the Sidley Austin law firm where her father was employed and which was a hot bed of leftist sympathizers, including Bernadine Dohrn, the terrorist wife of William Ayers. First year law students virtually never get to intern at major law firms. While at that law firm, Jarrett probably became his American handler. (It would be interesting to see when and where Jarrett went overseas for vacations or business.) It’s also possible that Michelle Robinson was recruited to be his cover, to provide a respectable family image despite his alleged gay sex life and drug use, in return for her riding his coattails into the final objective, the White House. In fact, when Obama lost his first bid to be a congressman, she reportedly almost left him.
After graduation from law school, Obama returned again to Chicago and started his political activities, working on the campaigns of various communists or socialists, until he gained enough experience and “street cred” among the city’s black south side population to enter politics himself. He went up the political ladder as fast as possible, from being elected state senator in 1997 to being elected United States senator in 2004 (aided when Carol Mosely Braun stepped aside for him). In 2004, he gave an impressive speech at the Democratic Party convention which fueled speculation that he might be presidential timber. But he wisely said he wasn’t ready. In fact, on November 8, 2004, after his election as senator, Obama said, “You know, I am a believer in knowing what you’re doing when you apply for a job. And I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. Now there are some people who might be comfortable with that, but I’m not one of those people.” However, that reticence to run for the presidency lasted until February 2007, when he announced his candidacy for president after having served only two years as a senator.
In 2005, Obama was adopted as a protege by Republican senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, one of the few Repubicans who was a creature of the fascist manipulator George Soros. Lugar took Obama on an arms control inspection trip to Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan in 2005. No doubt there were plenty of opportunities to meet with Russian handlers (fascists now, not communists) including when the American party was detained for several hours for no good reason and Obama was confined alone to a room in the airport. In 2006, Obama went abroad again, to Kenya, and perhaps met again with a Russian handler.
Did his Russian handlers push him into aggressively pursuing the office despite his misgivings? Did Obama really expect to win the nomination then? Or was it a Russian ploy to “prove” that a racist America would never consider a black man for president and thereby embarrass us.? Is that why Michelle Obama, surprised that her husband was winning, said that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of her country? If they thought America was so bad, why make a hopeless run for president? In any case, why would the Russians want to embarrass the United States? After all, the Soviet Union disintegrated and ostensibly communism was defeated in 1991, so the Russians were supposed to be no longer a threat.
The foreign intelligence requirements of the new Russian government did not end, of course, with the demise of the Soviet Union, and the functions of the KGB still had to continue even if that organization didn’t. So the new Russian government still had the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR). One of the methods the SVR uses to obtain information and influence is through moles, that is, people who are recruited at a young age, normally using ideological indoctrination, and then groomed to enter strategically useful occupations in sensitive positions when they reach adulthood. One recent example of this was the arrest in 2010 of ten Russian agents, the so-called “Illegals Program.” The ten agents were what Russians call “sleeper agents” or moles, who were educated to pass as Americans and then insinuate themselves into useful jobs.
The present Russian government is fascist by nature and has nationalistic ambitions. It is led by President Vladimir Putin, a former KGB official. To get an idea of what the Russians intend to achieve by the use of a mole as an influence agent, and why they still want to bring down the United States, consider the textbook, “Foundations of Geopolitics” written in 1997 by Alexander Dugin, a known fascist, and General Nikolai Klokotov of the military’s General Staff. The book is very popular with Russian national security and foreign policy officials and is used as a textbook by the General Staff Academy and other educational institutions. Klokotov stated that it would serve as a “mighty ideological foundation for preparing a new military command.”
The book declares that “the battle for the world rule of [ethnic] Russians” has not ended and Russia remains “the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution.” The Eurasian Empire will be constructed “on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us.”
It also states that Russia should use its special forces, including moles, within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, by, for example, provoking “Afro-American racists.” According to the book, Russia should “introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics.”
In June 2008, Obama beat out Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic Party nomination to run for president. One month later, Obama went abroad again, this time as the party’s nominee, as if there were voters out in Germany who needed persuading to vote for him. So why go abroad to campaign? Was the trip really a ploy to meet with his Russian handlers and receive more instructions on what they expected from him as president? Is the Obama program really directed from Moscow to further the agenda outlined in “Foundations of Geopolitics” book?
If you wonder how Obama could introduce “geopolitical disorder” into the United States, consider why Van Jones, an admitted communist who was recruited by Valerie Jarrett to be Obama’s “Green Jobs” czar wanted to take over the “Occupy Wall Street” movement. If you want to know why Obama encourages illegal immigration, appoints members of the Mexican separatist group “La Raza” to his administration, and tries to stop states from enforcing the borders, consider the above goals. If you want to know why Obama has brought so many members of the Muslim Brotherhood into his administration, consider the above goals. If you want to know why Obama is so racially divisive, consider the above goals. If you want to know why Obama is trying to wreck us financially, consider the above goals. If you wonder why leftists are encouraged to be as nasty as possible towards anyone on the right, further dividing the country, consider the above goals.

10336735_10152364141375359_5100705186748007042_n
As for America’s role in the world, Dugin and Klokotov’s book emphasizes that Russia must spread Anti-Americanism everywhere: “the main ‘scapegoat’ will be precisely the U.S.” What’s more, they stress the “continental Russian-Islamic alliance” which lies “at the foundation of the anti-Atlanticist strategy.” The alliance is based on the “traditional character of Russian and Islamic civilization.” The book calls Iran a key ally and uses the term “Moscow-Tehran axis.”
So, if you want to know why Obama would insult our traditional Atlantic allies, such as the United Kingdom, while supporting our enemies, such as trying to force the Hondurans to disregard their own constitution and allow their president, an ally of Venezuela’s former dictator Chavez, to remain in office past his allowed two terms, consider the above objectives. If you wonder why Obama would tell Russia’s Medvedev that he would have more flexibility to meet Russian goals after he’s reelected, consider the above objectives.
Although it hasn’t been confirmed, the Israeli Avi Lipkin (also known as Victor Mordecai) claims that on January 19, 2010 his wife Rachel, a native born Egyptian Jew, picked up a broadcast on Nile TV from Egypt. It was a round table discussion in which the Foreign Minister of Egypt, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, was quoted saying that in a one-on- one meeting with Barack Obama, our president swore to him that he was a Muslim. Gheit, who did, indeed, meet privately with Obama in 2009, continued by saying Obama told him, “I have a problem with some domestic issues. And as soon as I finish with the healthcare question you Muslims will see what I will do for Islam regarding Israel.”
So, if you wonder why Obama in conjunction with his close friend, Turkey’s president Ergogan, as well as the Saudis, have been actively supporting the overthrow of secular regimes that were cooperating with us in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and now Syria, only to replace them with Muslim Brotherhood Islamists who are our enemies and are likely to go to war with Israel eventually, consider the above Russian objectives. If you wonder why Obama let our staff in Benghazi die rather than save them, while putting out an absurd lie that it was a mob attack provoked by a movie from months before that nobody had ever seen, then realize that promoting the idea that an American movie incited the mob is a meme they were trying to create designed to make the US the scapegoat, just as in the objectives above. If you wonder why Obama didn’t support Iran’s dissidents in 2009, consider whose key ally Tehran is.
If you wonder why Obama has not supported Ukrainian dissidents fighting to prevent closer ties to Moscow in 2014, or even criticized the crackdown against regime opponents in Venezuela by Chavez’s hand-picked successor, consider what Moscow’s interests are. If you wonder why Obama is so diffident towards Muslims and indifferent if not hostile to Christians, consider whose objectives are being met.
After overthrowing the Egyptian government of Mubarak and installing the Muslim Brotherhood’s Morsi, the Egyptian people rebelled and threw them out. Likewise, Obama has been supporting Muslim terrorists who slaughter Christians in Syria as they try to overthrow the pro-Iranian regime of Assad probably at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Turkey. (Obama has yet to criticize the anti- Christian pogrom by Syria’s rebels.) But the Syrian rebels are making no headway, so Obama tried to get US military forces to intervene on behalf of the rebels until the American public objected. His latest tactic seems to be a deception. By creating the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (or the Levant), ISIS, he’s created a false enemy. His alleged solution is to arm the Free Syrian Army, which has been fighting the Syrian regime, so that they’ll fight ISIS. He proposes training them in Saudi Arabia, the very regime that has been financing the overthrow of Syria’s Assad, so that they’ll go after ISIS instead. But there’s no reason to believe the Free Syrian Army, which is composed of Islamists such as al-Qa’ida and the Muslim Brotherhood, will ignore Syria and battle fellow Muslims. Instead, they are likely to combine with ISIS and battle with US supplied arms.
As previously indicated, Obama is a close friend of Turkey’s President Erdogan, an Islamist whose party has pushed that country from being secular into embracing Islam as policy. Initially, Obama, Erdogan, the Saudis and probably George Soros were working together against Russia’s unofficial ally, Iran, but it appears that Obama has betrayed the Saudis, much to their fury, by making a deal with Iran to let them have a nuclear weapons program. Moreover, Turkey’s intelligence service betrayed Iranian dissidents to Tehran who were providing intelligence on Iran’s nuclear program. So, Obama and Turkey are now, along with the Russians, in bed with Iran. Why? Possibly because their program to overthrow Syria and replace Assad with a Sunni Islamic Brotherhood regime is failing, and Egypt is no longer an ally against Israel that it was under Morsi. So now, the only option to destroy Israel is nuclear and for that, they need Iran.
What else could Obama do for the Russians? While at Columbia, Obama wrote an article for a newspaper and also a class paper on nuclear disarmament, blaming the arms race entirely on the United States. Interestingly, nuclear disarmament of the West was a prime objective of the Soviet Union at the time. Nuclear disarmament is still one of Obama’s main interests and he’s done much to reduce the size of the American arsenal if not that of the Russians. According to President Obama, the United States has a moral obligation to disarm as an example to the rest of the world. His 2010 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty calls for the US to reduce our number of nuclear weapons to about 1550 while also agreeing not to create a missile defense shield in eastern Europe. The Russians must be very pleased.
As of 2013, he’s trying to reduce the number of nuclear weapons even more, to less than a thousand. American weapons, that is. The Russians are actually allowed to build more nuclear weapons since they say they have less than 1550 nuclear weapons and are busy modernizing their arsenal, something we’re not doing. If this sounds like an ideal situation for the Russians, Obama has given the Defense Department orders to plan on reducing our nuclear arsenal even further, down to 300 weapons. Bear in mind that even if you could get to a world where everyone lacked nuclear weapons and couldn’t build them, even the Chinese, Pakistanis, North Koreans, Israelis and Iranians, that would only make the world safe for large-scale conventional war.
Obama has also been firing and replacing flag-ranked officers in unprecedented numbers, leading some to believe that he’s putting his own compliant officers in key positions based on their willingness to open fire on Americans. Some of these key officers were responsible for America’s strategic nuclear forces. What’s more, many Air Force personnel manning the ICBM silos have been accused of various crimes and relieved as a result. Note that all of these people had to obtain a top secret clearance as a result of a comprehensive background investigation. How is it so many are deemed corrupt? Is Obama rendering our nuclear retaliatory capability prostrate?
In addition, he’s stopped several weapons programs such as the Tomahawk Cruise Missile and the Hellfire anti-personnel missiles, as well as drastically reduced the size of the Navy and the number of Army personnel. But he’s also allowed and encouraged illegal aliens to join America’s services at the same time. It should be obvious that Obama is striving to degrade America’s military, which works to the advantage of the Russians.
In America, Obama has been working to undermine the Constitution as he rules by the fiat of executive orders and unilaterally changing laws and deciding which ones to enforce. His economic policies of driving up government debt by many trillions of dollars and creating a welfare state have the earmarks of a Cloward-Piven strategy. (Cloward and Piven devised a plan to bankrupt New York by enlisting as many people as possible to go on welfare. The idea was to destroy the economy and replace it with a socialist state. In fact, they did manage to bankrupt New York City as a result.)
Obama is also working to bring vast numbers of Middle Eastern people into America without even vetting them. Many are likely to be terrorists and many have disappeared once they arrive in this country. He has created the crisis on the border with the massive wave of Central American’s entering this country along the Rio Grande in Texas. Many are vicious gang members and many are sick with a variety of dangerous diseases. Once inside this country, these dangerous people are shipped to locations the administration won’t disclose or simply let loose. It may be that the spread of the severe respiratory Enterovirus D68 that has polio-like symptoms is being spread by Central American children.
In October 2014, America had its first Ebola victim, so it may get much worse. The form of Ebola is far more contagious than previous strains and some believe it may be a weaponized version since the US government has a patent on it. What’s more, Disaster Response Teams reportedly were told months in advance that there would be a disaster in the coming October that would overwhelm EMT and Hospitals. Perhaps that’s true since the administration ordered 160,000 Hazmat suits. What else do we know? Obama put the Center for Disease Control directly under the White House. He also gutted quarantine rules that would help prevent pandemics from entering this country. So, what are the odds that Obama is part of a plot to ravage this country’s population?
If you wanted to allow terrorists into America carrying dirty bombs or chemical weapons, leaving the border unguarded or preventing Border Patrol Agents from defending themselves against assaults would also be s. In fact, that’s being done since Border Patrol personnel are being diverted to Texas. Meanwhile, not only are Central Americans flooding in, but reports indicate a wide variety of other nationalities are joining them, including Islamists.
Interestingly, the Russian Mafia is said to be in charge in Mexico. Presumably, they’re coordinating with Mexican drug gangs and it may be that Putin is behind the plan. Imagine what would happen if America were destroyed by several plagues, such as Ebola or some exotic disease, along with attacks by terrorists. I suspect that, too, is part of the Russian’s plan that Obama appears to be supporting.
The scandals associated with Obama are also an indication of his contempt for America. He directed the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to not grant tax free status to conservative groups and Obama’s critics are being audited. The National Security Agency (NSA) is now monitoring virtually all communications by Americans in this country, which used to be illegal. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is sending monitors into news rooms to see how they devise editorial policy. Obama, under the Fast and Furious program, has sent thousands of firearms to Mexican drug cartels. Then there’s the Benghazi debacle which looks more and more like a plot to ship American weapons from Libya to Syria that was intercepted by Hamas.
Obama has also been laying the ground work to create a martial law crackdown on right wing opponents. His Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been buying billions of rounds of ammunition, giving away armored vehicles to police forces, buying armored check point stations and thousands of automatic weapons. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has contracted to build “refugee” camps that resemble prisons with inward facing barbed- wire fences. The Army has a field manual that directs how to run such a camp, including political indoctrination and keeping track of inmates by social security number. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has provisions for the indefinite detention of American citizens in such camps under any pretext. Obama’s executive orders allow him to seize control of all utilities and transportation in this country even in time of peace. The Army and DHS have been practicing urban warfare exercises within large American cities and have recently constructed a mock US city to practice on. Army exercises and manuals stress that the terrorists are likely to be those who want to uphold the Constitution and display other conservative values. Clearly, something sinister is up.

10155237_676844005687418_2971614967135278225_n
Obama appears to be deliberately instituting a fascist regime in America. Fascism is a way station on the road from Capitalism to Communism. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is wrecking the economy, sowing chaos in the health care industry, adding to debt, depriving people of insurance or driving up their costs drastically, throwing people out of work and putting one-sixth of the US economy directly under the thumb of the government. And it’s not by nationalizing the healthcare industry, it’s by micromanaging it. That’s the difference between socialism and fascism. When the government directly takes over the healthcare industry as the single payer, then it will be socialized medicine. Until then, it’s fascist medicine.
In the end, we still don’t know who Obama really is. His birth certificate is a proven fraud. His draft card is clearly a fake. His social security numbers (he has many) are from a state he never lived in. His academic, government and health records are all sealed and he has spent millions to ensure they can’t be opened. Isn’t it possible, if not probable, that Obama is a mole?
Obama was famously overheard on a hot mic when he told Russia’s then President Medvedev (he was holding the spot for Vladimir Putin who was Prime Minister since Putin, Russia’s real boss, couldn’t run for president again under the Russian constitution) that he needed more space to solve the missile defense issue and that he would be more flexible after his next and last election (in 2012). Medvedev said, “I will transmit this information to Vladimir and I stand with you.” The press has largely ignored the familiar use of Vladimir rather than saying “Putin” or even just “the prime minister”, but more importantly, they’ve also failed to comment on why Medvedev would say, “I stand with you.” Doesn’t that imply that Medvedev knows Obama stands with him?
Now then, if you want to know how Russia could ever achieve the objective, “strategic control of the USA”, consider why they would put a mole in the White House.
By the way, as I usually do, I asked the universe for a sign as to whether this hypothesis is correct. Later that evening, I was walking past the TV as my wife was watching NCIS. I was taken aback when I heard a black character on the show state that he wasn’t really an American. He was from Somalia and was trained by the Soviets in Russia to become an American mole. He said the Russians dropped him off from a submarine near Seattle. I presume the producers of the show were hinting at Obama or using him as a model, but I was amazed at the timing of when and how I saw it.

Content copyright 20152015. . All rights reserved.

10321741_10152454140358189_8213125452691970229_o

42 ADMITTED FALSE FLAG ATTACKS IN THIS CRUMMY WORLD!!!

“Governments from Around the World Admit They Do It

page1image1920

Image Credits: Jonathan Perera / Flickr

by WASHINGTON’S BLOG | FEBRUARY 9, 2015

There are many documented false flag attacks, where a government carries out a terror attack … and then falsely blames its enemy for political purposes.
In the following 42 instances, officials in the government which carried out the attack (or seriously proposed an attack) admits to it, either orally or in writing:
(1) Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931, and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria. This is known as the “Mukden Incident” or the “Manchurian Incident”. The Tokyo International Military Tribunal found: “Several of the participators in the plan, including Hashimoto [a high-ranking Japanese army officer], have on various occasionsadmitted their part in the plot and have stated that the object of the ‘Incident’ was to afford an excuse for the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army ….” And see this.

(2) A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland.
(3) Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann
Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson.
(4) Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 – while blaming the attack on Finland – as a basis for launching the “Winter War” against Finland. Russian president Boris Yeltsin agreed that Russia had been the aggressor in the Winter War.
(5) The Russian Parliament, current Russian president Putin and former Soviet leader Gorbachev
all admit that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered his secret police to execute 22,000 Polish army officers and civilians in 1940, and falsely blame it on the Nazis.
(6) The British government admits that – between 1946 and 1948 – it bombed 5 ships carrying Jews attempting to flee the Holocaust to seek safety in Palestine, set up a fake group called “Defenders of Arab Palestine”, and then had the psuedo-group falsely claim responsibility for the bombings (and
seethis, this and this).
(7) Israel admits that in 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this).
(8) The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.
(9) The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.
(10) The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change.
(11) The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian
counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security” (and see this) (Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred). And watch this BBC special. They also allegedly carried out terror attacks in France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the UK, and other countries.
(12) In 1960, American Senator George Smathers suggested that the U.S. launch “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]“.
(13) Official State Department documents show that, in 1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high- level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals.
(14) As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.
(15) In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a paper promoting attacks on nations within the Organization of American States – such as Trinidad-Tobago or Jamaica – and then falsely blaming them on Cuba.
(16) The U.S. Department of Defense even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: “The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro’s subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on Guantanamo.”
(17) The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 … manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war.
(18) A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists.
(19) A top Turkish general admitted that Turkish forces burned down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on their enemy. He explained: “In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque.” In response to the surprised correspondent’s incredulous look the general said, “I am giving an example”.
(20) The German government admitted (and see this) that, in 1978, the German secret service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a prison and planted “escape tools” on a prisoner – a member of the Red Army Faction – which the secret service wished to frame the bombing on.
(21) A Mossad agent admits that, in 1984, Mossad planted a radio transmitter in Gaddaffi’s compound in Tripoli, Libya which broadcast fake terrorist trasmissions recorded by Mossad, in order to frame Gaddaffi as a terrorist supporter. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya immediately thereafter.
(22) The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident”, thus framing the ANC for the bombing.
(23) An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and
see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author).
(24) An Indonesian fact-finding team investigated violent riots which occurred in 1998, and determined that “elements of the military had been involved in the riots, some of which were deliberately provoked”.
(25) Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings in 1999 and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and
see this report and this discussion).
(26) According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.
(27) The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings.
(28) As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the “war on terror”.
(29) Senior police officials in Genoa, Italy admitted that – in July 2001, at the G8 summit in Genoa – planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer, in order to justify a violent crackdown against protesters.
(30) Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country.
(31) Similarly, the U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by amemo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war. Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction (despite previous “lone wolf” claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers).
(32) Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”
(33) United Press International reported in June 2005:
(34) Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians.
(35) Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and see this).
(36) At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence.
(37) Egyptian politicians admitted (and see this) that government employees looted priceless museum artifacts in 2011 to try to discredit the protesters.
(38) A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat.
(39) The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – recently admitted that the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists.
(40) High-level American sources admitted that the Turkish government – a fellow NATO country – carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government; and high-ranking Turkish
government admitted on tape plans to carry out attacks and blame it on the Syrian government.
(41) The former Ukrainian security chief admits that the sniper attacks which started the Ukrainian coup were carried out in order to frame others.
(42) Britain’s spy agency has admitted (and see this) that it carries out “digital false flag” attacks on targets, framing people by writing offensive or unlawful material … and blaming it on the target.
In addition, two-thirds of the City of Rome burned down in a huge fire on July 19, 64 A.D. The Roman people blamed the Emperor Nero for starting the fire. Some top Roman leaders – including the Roman consul Cassius Dio, as well as historians like Suetonius – agreed that Nero started the fire (based largely on the fact that the Roman Senate had just rejected Nero’s application to clear 300 acres in Rome so that he could build a palatial complex, and that the fire allowed him to build his complex). Regardless of who actually started the fire, Nero – in the face of public opinion accusing him of arson – falsely blamed theChristians for starting the fire. He then rounded up and brutally tortured and murdered scores of Christians for something they likely didn’t do.
We didn’t include this in the list above, because – if Nero did start the fire on purpose – he did it for hisown reasons (to build his palatial complex), and not for geopolitical reasons benefiting his nation.
So Common … There’s a Name for It
The use of the bully’s trick is so common that it was given a name hundreds of years ago.
“False flag terrorism” is defined as a government attacking its own people, then blaming others in order to justify going to war against the people it blames. Or as Wikipedia defines it:
U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.
The term comes from the old days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy before attacking another ship. Because the enemy’s flag, instead of the flag of the real country of the attacking ship, was hung, it was called a “false flag” attack.
Indeed, this concept is so well-accepted that rules of engagement for naval, air and land warfare all prohibit false flag attacks.
Leaders Throughout History Have Acknowledged False Flags
Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the danger of false flags:
“A history of false flag attacks used to manipulate the minds of the people! “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
“Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death”.
– Adolph Hitler
“Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
– Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.
“The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.
– Josef Stalin”

The train we’re on is now running downhill without brakes …

10897960_10203708018125193_2345684501439389911_n

CRUMMY PROPAGANDA RULES IN SCHOOLS

BRAINWASHING BEGINS WITH COMMAN CORE IN GRADE SCHOOLS

AND REACHES A CRESCENDO IN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES!

IF WE DON”T STOP THIS – WE WILL HAVE NO FUTURE

BECAUSE OUR CHILDREN ARE THE FUTURE

AND THEY WILL BELONG TO THE STATE!!!

images

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/de-imagining-america/?fb_action_ids=10201438719679683&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=.UymGaiICL_s.like

De-Imagining America
March 19, 2014 by Matthew Vadum

337-350x350


A little-known consortium of radical groups, public-funded universities and the federal government is quietly seeking to transform the arts and other academic disciplines into vehicles of left-wing extremism and indoctrination. The initiative, called “Imagining America,” embraces the philosophy of Communist historian Howard Zinn, famous for manipulating historical fact to fit Marxist paradigms of human “progress” and to plant the seeds of radicalism in unsuspecting youth.
Imagining America is headquartered at taxpayer-funded Syracuse University in upstate New York and was virtually unknown until Glenn Beck threw some light on it in a broadcast. Beck described Imagining America and another group that calls itself “The U.S. Department of Arts and Culture” as an “effort to rewrite our history and catalyze a new culture for America.” This “department” isn’t actually part of the U.S. government but describes itself as “the nation’s newest people-powered department, founded on the truth that art and culture are our most powerful and under-tapped resources for social change.”

Active in both groups are “the people that will be teaching and influencing your children” through “art and music and film and history books,” Beck said.
America’s neo-communist radicals figured out a long time ago how to have their cake and eat it, too. U.S. taxpayers have been funding subversive left-wing groups like the now-defunct Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and Saul Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation since the Johnson administration. They advance their objectives, erode civil society, and send you the bill. Such is also the case with Imagining America, which occupies a cushy niche at the intersection of taxpayer-funded universities, government agencies and wealthy far-left non-profit organizations.
Imagining America grew out of executive action. President Bill Clinton created the White House Millennium Council by Executive Order 13072 on Feb. 2, 1998. One of the council’s tasks was to “[p]roduce informational and resource materials to educate the American people concerning our Nation’s past and to inspire thought concerning the future[.]” The veritable cultural warfare council was headed by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton.
Imagining America was founded at a 1999 White House Conference initiated by the White House Millennium Council, the University of Michigan, and the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation. Conference participants became the basis for what was to become the group’s “consortium” of 100-plus colleges and universities. The group was initially hosted by the University of Michigan. Syracuse University took over in 2007 as IA’s temporary home, and will remain host through 2017.
Radical Objectives
Like many radical groups, Imagining America (its full name is Imagining America: Artists and Scholars in Public Life) couches its goals in soothing, innocuous-sounding prose.
“Imagining America,” according to its current mission statement,
advances knowledge and creativity through publicly engaged scholarship that draws on humanities, arts, and design. We catalyze change in campus practices, structures, and policies that enables publicly engaged artists and scholars to thrive and contribute to community action and revitalization.

According to IA, publicly engaged scholarship
is defined by partnerships of university knowledge and resources with those of the public and private sectors to enrich scholarship, research, creative activity, and public knowledge; enhance curriculum, teaching and learning; prepare educated, engaged citizens; strengthen democratic values and civic responsibility; address and help solve critical social problems; and contribute to the public good.
Publicly engaged scholarship, also called simply public scholarship, means politicized scholarship. It is not about the free pursuit of knowledge for knowledge’s sake. In other words, going to college is not about the disinterested pursuit of knowledge and truth. It’s about righting the perceived wrongs of the past and changing society in furtherance of so-called social justice.
And in the hands of leftist crusaders, many of the above words in IA’s mission statement don’t mean what you might think they mean.
For example, when these people use the word democracy or democratic, they mock democracy as the idea is understood by most Americans. They believe in what the Left calls economic democracy, also known as socialism. They are excited at the prospect of reordering society with the help of capitalism-hating agitators. To them, democracy is Marxist mobocracy. And it’s only true democracy if they prevail. If they lose, it’s not democracy: the capitalists stole the election or took advantage of the people because they suffer from a mass “false consciousness.”
To cut through the billowy clouds of word smog generated by leftist academics, it is necessary to examine what the ideas embraced by Imagining America actually amount to in the plain English that these people use in public outreach.
Take the case of socialist theorist and community organizer Harry Boyte, who is director of the Center for Democracy and Citizenship at Augsburg College in Minneapolis (Augsburg is a member of IA’s consortium of colleges.)
In a video intended for public consumption that promotes Imagining America’s national conference this October in Atlanta, Boyte urged the fusion of higher education and left-wing activism:
I want to lift up organizing as a supplement. It’s different than action. In fact, organizing is not mobilizing. It’s not people out in the streets in a protest mode. It’s the patient, slow development of relationships that build power … This is actually an extraordinary pioneering step for Imagining America to be bringing in organizing methods to which people in higher education, and connected to the world, can make our work more public.
Academic Scott J. Peters, co-director of Imagining America, said his group is tasked with
producing knowledge and theory and writings but the most substantial part of that work is actually building relationships, organizing opportunities for people to understand what they’re facing, to come together to share their values and experiences, and then to try to make the changes that will help advance their values and their ideals. That work is organizing work.
“There’s a tension that organizers are always working and that’s the tension between the world as it is and the world as it ought to be,” said Peters, paraphrasing Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals, the vade mecum of the organizing world.
“Well, the ‘story of now’ is a story that helps us see and feel that tension,” Peters said in a reference to what community organizing theorist Marshall Ganz of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government calls the “public narrative” framework. “We can see that the world as it is, ‘the story of now,’ is not the same thing as the world we’d like it to be, so therefore we’re called to act.”
Peters is also part of the leadership team for a dubious research project that received $5 million from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The project is called “Food Dignity: Action Research on Engaging Food Insecure Communities and Universities in Building Sustainable Community Food Systems.”
When you’re a Marxist, America is always in crisis. Kevin Bott, an associate director at IA, said the group “is at a particularly interesting and ripe moment to assert arts, humanities, and design thinking as a way to get the heart of the crisis that we all find ourselves in locally, nationally, and globally, politically, socially, economically.” Bott was also the Green Party’s unsuccessful candidate for mayor of Syracuse last year.
George J. Sanchez, vice dean for diversity at the University of Southern California, declared that IA examines “huge issues for the country and I think, again, we have to imagine a different America.”
Jesikah Maria Ross, a community organizer who is creative director at Praxis Projects, said IA “is really looking at, how do we bring together faculty, students from different disciplines with community organizations to kind of co-create something whether it’s an artistic production or engaged scholarship in a publication. How do we do something together for mutual benefit that moves community organizing and community change forwards?”
Fresh from the politically correct indoctrination camp, Ryan Metzler, a student in Occidental College’s Media Arts & Culture Program, spews the things that Imagining America wants to hear, complete with appropriately tortured postmodern diction, neo-Marxist buzzwords, and trendy academic gibberish.
In a testimonial on the IA website he writes:
“My work is informed by the belief that media makers have a responsibility to collaborate with and integrate marginalized communities into documentary films and other media projects in order to transform problematic representations … Media makers must take responsibility as a democratic community to break stereotypes by giving voices to men and women who lack the technological resources … We as a society cannot forget the history of media practices. As a society we cannot practice such an influential art without all groups having a voice.”
This is the language of relativism and multiculturalism, both of which are tools neo-Marxists use to weaken and transform America. The first obligation of media “makers,” as the student calls documentarians and journalists, is to push so-called social justice and allow disadvantaged groups a veto over his work, he claims. After years of PC brainwashing, truth is apparently not important to him.
Not surprisingly, Imagining America requires fellows in its Publicly Active Graduate Education (PAGE) program to read the Marxist journal, Monthly Review, and works by communists W.E.B. DuBois and Paulo Freire (author of Pedagogy of the Oppressed).
Among the course offerings for which Syracuse University faculty members have received IA grants are “Jazz and Human Rights as Cultural Democracy” and “Queering Syracuse.” A grant was also given for a course called “Masks, Movement, and Giant Puppets” that may as well be taught by anti-American radical Medea Benjamin of Code Pink.
Legal Status
Figuring out the legal status and internal organizational structure of Imagining America is no easy task.
When the University of Delaware received a $2,000 “Critical Exchange Grant” from Imagining America, the school described IA as “a national nonprofit organization that encourages the incorporation of civic responsibility into art education at the university level.” But this researcher could find no evidence that Imagining America is a legally incorporated nonprofit entity. A public database search in Nexis revealed what appeared to be an old, probably lapsed business listing of some kind in its name in Michigan, but nothing else.
It is difficult to imagine running an enterprise as large and active as Imagining America appears to be without incorporating it somewhere. If Imagining America is merely an unincorporated project of Syracuse University there could be problems in terms of commingling of funds and it could generating major accounting headaches.
But that’s exactly what Imagining America is, according to Erin Martin Kane, Syracuse University’s associate vice president for public relations, who responded to some organizational questions by email. After rehashing IA’s creation story, she explained that IA “is an academic unit of SU that’s funded and supported by the more than 100 member institutions, including SU, other colleges and universities, and civic organizations. IA does not solicit, or accept donations from individuals.”
At press time, Kane had failed to respond to follow-up questions about how large IA’s annual budget was, how many employees it has, and if it produces annual or regular reports. That IA is an “academic unit” of SU, as Kane indicated, appears to be true. The SU comptroller’s office lists Imagining America as department 20018 of the university.
Even so, Imagining America’s finances are very difficult to track, perhaps deliberately so. It charges taxpayer-funded educational institutions up to $5,000 annually in membership dues, which means that taxpayers fund IA indirectly. Grants to IA from foundations and membership dues from these tax-exempt universities and colleges that are part of the IA consortium should presumably appear in tax returns somewhere. But very little appears in the comprehensive FoundationSearch database which contains data extracted from the compulsory annual IRS filings of foundations and other nonprofit organizations.
The database shows only a handful of grants from foundations that benefited the group.
The Rockefeller Foundation has been onboard with IA since at least 2001. That year it gave $150,000 to the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation “to support ‘Imagining America’ public scholarship grants program.” The next year it gave $25,000 to the University of Michigan “toward the costs of a conference of the Imagining America public scholarship program entitled ‘The Engaged University, the Engaged Community, & the Daily Practice of Democracy.’”
The New York Council for the Humanities, a taxpayer-funded nonprofit, gave Imagining America $18,000 in 2010. The Teagle Foundation gave IA $150,000 in 2012.
And there the paper trail of grants specifically designated for Imagining America ends.
High-profile left-wing philanthropies have given money to the University of Michigan and Syracuse University that may have ended up supporting Imagining America projects.
Radical financier George Soros’s Open Society Foundations (formerly known as Open Society Institute) has given grants to the University of Michigan ($6,020 since 2000) and Syracuse University ($203,880 since 1999). The Soros-associated Tides Foundation has given grants to the University of Michigan ($35,000 since 2005).
Syracuse University has received funding from the Nathan Cummings Foundation ($185,000 since 2001), Rockefeller Foundation ($638,800 since 2000), and the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation ($392,600 since 2009).

change pic

Transforming America With Your Tax-dollars
“Politics is downstream from culture,” the late, great media entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart liked to say frequently when explaining how the deck has been stacked against conservatives for decades. At Breitbart’s website, screenwriter and producer Lawrence Meyers, elaborated.
Culture influences politics, and in ways the Left has understood for a long time. The Right has sat idly by, as they did with higher education, and let an ideological movement take over one of the most important aspects of American society.
Imagining America is at the center of it all, accompanied by neo-communist activists and organizers, cheering our republic’s decline, and teaching Americans to despise their country.
The Obama administration is helping the group accomplish its mission.
In early 2012, IA proudly announced it was working with the White House Office of Public Engagement, the U.S. Department of Education, and various groups to publicly launch the American Commonwealth Partnership (ACP), “a yearlong initiative to promote higher education as an agent of democracy and a force for public good.” [emphasis added]
The director of ACP was socialist organizer Harry Boyte. IA’s Peters and his fellow co-director Timothy K. Eatman were also both members of ACP’s steering committee.
With taxpayer funding provided by the U.S. Department of Education, the National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement of the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU) laid bare the radicals’ objectives in a 2012 report.
In “A Crucible Moment: College Learning & Democracy’s Future,” AACU recommended that “existing national civic networks … be tapped and expanded for leadership in mobilizing the next generation of investment in civic learning.” It singled out The Research University Civic Engagement Network (TRUCEN), Project Pericles, and Imagining America.
At page 42 the report states,
“If indeed we seek a democratic society in which the public welfare matters as much as the individual’s welfare, and in which global welfare matters along with national welfare, then education must play its influential part to bring such a society into being.”
That’s the goal of Imagining America and the public scholarship movement in a nutshell. To transform America so that the collective trumps the individual, and the rest of the world trumps America.
As long as President Obama remains in office, your taxpayer dollars will continue to support these un-American goals.
And if Hillary Clinton, who got the American narrative rewriting effort underway in 1999 when she headed the White House Millennium Council, succeeds Obama in the Oval Office, she’ll do whatever she can to finish the job she started.

 

1383216_603054449752042_523476640_n

Aside

NDAA RULES

In case you have no idea what that is – it is the

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

One of the worst pieces of legislation ever perpetrated on the american people, under the guise of protection for the people from terrorists, then they changed the definition of terrorist from Islamist Jihadist to Bible carrying Constitutional upholding, American! If you need proof – look up the definition of terrorist in the FBI handbook, the DHS Department rules etc. etc. Then to really make your head spin, look up the targets that the police departments are now using to practice on, so they can shoot without hesitation – pregnant women, children, grandmothers, people in wheelchairs. And you know something, it’s working, because the police are killing people every day by shooting first and asking questions later and they are being allowed to get away with it! Stories about all of this can be found on line, even on Fox News.

I WANT THE OLD AMERICA BACK!

BUT THE ONLY WAY THAT WILL HAPPEN,

IS IF WE TAKE IT BACK!!!

Instead of making the administration rein in the spying, the intimidation, the singling out of conservatives by the IRS and telling the President that he and his minions have to abide by the law of this land, CALLED “THE CONSTITUTION”, both parties gave him the OK to keep on going, by approving the NDAA for 2014 without any restrictions! And if it wasn’t for Snowden, and some other “Whistle Blowers”, We the People, would still have no idea how bad the government really is!

Image

http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/congress-grants-obama-free-rein-for-martial-law/#siLiTB6fxWVdUcJW.99 WND EXCLUSIVE CONGRESS GRANTS OBAMA ‘FREE REIN FOR MARTIAL LAW’ ‘Subjugation of citizenry’ looming as U.S. becomes ‘police state’ Published: 1 day ago 1 24 2014  BOB UNRUH About Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially. Some of the nation’s most respected legal teams are asking the Supreme Court to take up a challenge to the indefinite-detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act, charging the law has created the framework for a police state. The controversial provision authorizes the military, under presidential authority, to arrest, kidnap, detain without trial and hold indefinitely American citizens thought to “represent an enduring security threat to the United States.”  Journalist Chris Hedges, who is suing the government over a controversial provision in the National Defense Authorization Act, is seen here addressing a crowd in New York’s Zuccotti Park.

Image

Journalist Chris Hedges is among the plaintiffs charging the law could be used to target journalists who report on terror-related issues. A friend-of-the-court brief submitted in the case states: “The central question now before this court is whether the federal judiciary will stand idly by while Congress and the president establish the legal framework for the establishment of a police state and the subjugation of the American citizenry through the threat of indefinite military arrest and detention, without the right to counsel, the right to confront one’s accusers, or the right to trial.” The brief was submitted to the Supreme Court by attorneys with the U.S. Justice Foundation of Ramona, Calif., Friedman Harfenist Kraut & Perlstein of Lake Success, N.Y., and William J. Olson, P.C. of Vienna, Va. The attorneys are Michael Connelly, Steven J. Harfenist, William J. Olson, Herbert W. Titus, John S. Miles, Jeremiah L. Morgan and Robert J. Olson. They are adding their voices to the chorus asking the Supreme Court to overturn the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to challenge the law adopted by Congress. The brief is on behalf of U.S. Rep. Steve Stockman, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Virginia Sen. Dick Black, the U.S. Justice Foundation, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Center for Media & Democracy, Downsize DC Foundation, Downsize DC.org, Free Speech Defense & Education Fund, Free Speech Coalition, Western Journalism Center, The Lincoln Institute, Institute on the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln Foundation and Conservative Legal Defense & Education Fund. The 2014 NDAA was fast-tracked through the U.S. Senate, with no time for discussion or amendments, while most Americans were distracted by the scandal surrounding A&E’s troubles with “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson. Eighty-five of 100 senators voted in favor of the new version of the NDAA, which had already been quietly passed by the House of Representatives. Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and others filed a lawsuit in 2012 against the Obama administration to challenge the legality of an earlier version of the NDAA. It’s Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA, and its successors, that drew a lawsuit by Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Noam Chomsky, Alex O’Brien, Kai Warg All, Brigitta Jonsottir and the group U.S. Day of Rage. Many of the plaintiffs are authors or reporters who stated that the threat of indefinite detention by the U.S. military already had altered their activities. “It’s clearly unconstitutional,” Hedges says of the bill. “It is a huge and egregious assault against our democracy. It overturns over 200 years of law, which has kept the military out of domestic policing.” Hedges is a former foreign correspondent for the New York Times and was part of a team of reporters awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for the paper’s coverage of global terrorism. The friend-of-the-court brief warns the precedent “leaves American citizens vulnerable to arrest and detention, without the protection of the Bill of Rights, under either the plaintiff’s or the government’s theory of the case. “The judiciary must not await subsequent litigation to resolve this issue, as the nature of military detention is that American citizens then would have no adequate legal remedy,” the brief explains. Video mania: The instruction manual on how to restore America to what it once was: “Taking America Back” on DVD. This package also includes the “Tea Party at Sea” DVD. Section 1021 allows the detention of anyone, including American citizens, by the military, if the president considers that person to have helped with terror. It’s different from the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which was adopted immediately after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, because while that law allows detention, there must be something linking them to the Sept. 11 attacks. “Section 1021 authorizes detention, potentially forever, and even rendition of American citizens to foreign nations,” the brief points out. “If this court refuses to hear the Hedges challenge, it will leave American citizens subject to unconstitutional military arrest and detention. “If this court does not grant the petition, there is no reason to believe the U.S. presidents would cease to assert ‘the right to place certain individuals [including American citizens] in military detention, without trial.’ There would continue to be no statutory constraint on an arrest being authorized by a military officer of unspecified rank. There would be no protection provided by the requirement of a grand jury indictment. There would be no requirement of an arrest arrant issued by an Article II judge supported by a sworn affidavit showing probable cause of the commission of a specific crime. Neither would there be any protection against use of compelled testimony, or against an violation of due process of law. There would be no civilian proceedings whatsoever against the person detained. Indeed, there is no requirement that the individual being detained has committed any federal crime, and military detentions could be used to circumvent the protections afforded American citizens by the treason clause of the U.S. Constitution.” It describes a scary scenario. “After the string of black Suburbans pulls away, it is difficult to believe that the military would provide relatives or lawyers with any information whatsoever as to where the person being detained was being held.” After all, it explains, Congress specifically expressed its desire for the detention provision to apply to American citizens even on American soil by rejecting multiple amendments that would have exempted them. And Obama, also, affirmed the detention authority, stating, “I want to clarify that my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens … My administration will interpret Section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.” Simply stating that means it could be interpreted in a contrary manner. At the trial court level, U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order that struck the provision as unconstitutional. Multiple states have passed laws banning its enforcement inside those states. Herb Titus, a constitutional expert, previously told WND Forrest’s ruling underscored “the arrogance of the current regime, in that they will not answer questions that they ought to answer to a judge because they don’t think they have to.” The judge explained that the plaintiffs alleged paragraph 1021 is “constitutionally infirm, violating both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment as well due process rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.” She noted the government “did not call any witnesses, submit any documentary evidence or file any declarations.” “It must be said that it would have been a rather simple matter for the government to have stated that as to these plaintiffs and the conduct as to which they would testify, that [paragraph] 1021 did not and would not apply, if indeed it did or would not,” she wrote. Instead, the administration only responded with, “I’m not authorized to make specific representations regarding specific people.” “The court’s attempt to avoid having to deal with the constitutional aspects of the challenge was by providing the government with prompt notice in the form of declarations and depositions of the … conduct in which plaintiffs are involved and which they claim places them in fear of military detention,” she wrote. “To put it bluntly, to eliminate these plaintiffs’ standing simply by representing that their conduct does not fall within the scope of 1021 would have been simple. The government chose not to do so – thereby ensuring standing and requiring this court to reach the merits of the instant motion. “Plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the 1st Amendment,” she wrote. Experts have expressed concern that even a journalist who has interviewed a member of a terror group may be considered to have rendered aid to that group. The government appealed the trial judge’s ruling to the 2nd Circuit, which abruptly ruled that the plaintiffs had no right to challenge the law. Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/congress-grants-obama-free-rein-for-martial-law/#at3I7ODLPFt8OGGl.99 Article has embedded video link which is worth watching!

Image

Below is a good graphic the illustrates where we are going, or maybe in reality, where we already are! Click on it to enlarge it for readability! I had to enlarge it into 3 pieces because it still was not readable!

police_state lgr                   Untitled      Untitled1      Untitled2

I think the time is now, to make your stand and have your voice heard!!!

10001375_676460262411460_553713600_n

CRUMMY NDAA RULES THE LAND OF THE USED TO BE FREE

CRUMMY GAS FLOW IS THE ANSWER & THE QUESTION IS – WHY SYRIA? WHY NOW?

THIS IS ONE YOU MUST READ!!!

The author did a whole lot of research to tie all the pieces together and he succeeds – brilliantly!

His article is well researched and referenced!

makes sense

371785_100002702173010_1663169561_q

John Gaultier

BINGO!! TOOK ME A WHILE TO PUT IT ALL TOGETHER… NOW IT ALL MAKES SENSE…. THIS IS A LONG LONG READ. IF IT MAKES SENSE TO YOU..SHARE IT! PLEASE COMMENT TOO.. I VALUE YOUR INPUT!

Why is Obama so vehement about bombing Syria?

Why are the Arabs so keen to get rid of Assad?

Why are they willing to pay the US to make our Military into a mercenary force?

Why is Russia so keen of helping a non player like Assad?

READ THIS AND YOU WILL GET IT…

ITS ABOUT ..MONEY AND OIL AND WHO GETS THE PROFITS FROM IT!!

Here is a rhetorical question to ask….Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria? The answer revolves, as usually is the case in the Middle East, around an oil pipeline and the money.

Here are some additional perspectives.

Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won’t let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria? Of course. Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe.

And as we asked last week, why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been “jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime”? Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region.

On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons. One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom.

Now Obama is getting directly involved in the conflict with direct ordesr from his handlers the SAUDI’S. If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia. This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all. ( DUH!!! ) But if Obama gets it done he has a HUGE HUGE commission coming after his retirement or ejection from America!

It has been common knowledge that Qatar has desperately wanted to construct a natural gas pipeline that will enable it to get natural gas to Europe for a very long time.

The article was found from 2009…

“Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world’s biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).

“We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey,” Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. “We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time,” he said, according to Turkey’s Anatolia news agency.

Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas. NOW THAT’S WHERE THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THEIR SPECIAL INTERESTS COME IN.

“For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all,” Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.

Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world’s leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study.

THATS THE REASON WHY OBAMA HAS BLOCKED THE KEYSTONE PROJECT AND BLOCKED ANY FRACKING, SHALE EXPLORATION IN THE US.. ITS OK FOR THE REST OF THE WORLD>…BUT AWFUL FOR THE US.

SAUDI ARABIA EVEN WENT TO WORK IN THE PROPAGANDA WAR FUNDING THE CORNY MATT DAMON MOVIUE ABOUT FRACKING. Called “Promised Land”, or.

Last week, the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation pointed out that in the trailer for film, one of the financial backers listed is Image Nation Abu Dhabi.

Image Nation Abu Dhabi is, in turn, owned by Abu Dhabi Media – a state media company for the United Arab Emirates. The UAE, an OPEC member, is the world’s third-largest oil exporter.

– See more at: http://economy.money.cnn.com/2012/10/01/matt-damon-fracking/#sthash.P49HHXK5.dpuf

As you just read, there were two proposed routes for the pipeline. Unfortunately for Qatar, Saudi Arabia said no to the first route and Syria said no to the second route. The following is from an absolutely outstanding article in the Guardian…

In 2009 – the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria – Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad’s rationale was “to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.”

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 – just as Syria’s civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo – and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a “direct slap in the face” to Qatar’s plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that “whatever regime comes after” Assad, it will be “completely” in Saudi Arabia’s hands and will “not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports”, according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

If Qatar is able to get natural gas flowing into Europe, that will be a significant blow to Russia. So the conflict in Syria is actually much more about a pipeline than it is about the future of the Syrian people. In a recent article, Paul McGuire summarized things quite nicely…

The Nabucco Agreement was signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009. It was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria, bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.

Qatar would love to sell its LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said “NO” to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. The only solution for Qatar if it wants to sell its oil is to cut a deal with the U.S.

Recently Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International have made a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets. Qatar stands to make a lot of money and the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.

The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas, in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why natural gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long. What appears to be a conflict with Syria is really a conflict between the U.S. and Russia! THAT IS WHY OBAMA IS RACING TO TRY AND CONVERT AMERICA INTO A SOCIALIST OLIGARCHY SO THAT HIS CABAL CAN HAVE CONTROL OVER THIS HUGE RESERVE.

The main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. These are the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising, having spent over $3 billion so far on the conflict. The other side of the story is Saudi Arabia, which finances anti-Assad groups in Syria. The Saudis do not want to be marginalized by Qatar; thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.

Yes, I know that this is all very complicated.

But no matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no reason for the United States to be getting involved in this conflict.

If the U.S. does get involved, we will actually be helping al-Qaeda terrorists that behead mothers and their infants…

Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant.

Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.

Is this really who we want to be “allied” with?

And of course once we strike Syria, the war could escalate into a full-blown conflict very easily.

If you believe that the Obama administration would never send U.S. troops into Syria, you are just being naive. In fact, according to Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, the proposed authorization to use military force that has been sent to Congress would leave the door wide open for American “boots on the ground”…

The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad. It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force. It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets. Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used.

Four points are worth making about these purposes.

First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict. Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.).

Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.”

Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”).

Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).

I think this AUMF has much broader implications than Ilya Somin described. Some questions for Congress to ponder:

(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power? Yes, as long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons. It is very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.

(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon? Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.

Would you like to send your own son or your own daughter to fight in Syria just so that a natural gas pipeline can be built?

What the United States should be doing in this situation is so obvious that even the five-year-old grandson of Nancy Pelosi can figure it out…

In the end, how much American blood will be spilled over a stupid natural gas pipeline and Retirement MONEY for Obama and all those who support him like his Cabal and other Rino’s like McCain, Graham and others. THERE IS HUGE MONEY INVOLVED… WE ARE TALKING HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS…. AND FOR THAT KIND OF MONEY OUR MILITARY AND WE TAX PAYERS ARE THE PAWNS!!

ITS THE OLD YOU SCRATCH MY BACK.. AND I’LL SCRATCH YOURS ROUTINE…

ITS PLAYED OUT ON A DAILY BASIS IN THE MIDDLE EAST.. IN FACT ITS THEIR WAY OF LIFE!!!

  1240266_573031792754308_1820955426_n

The above article explained WHY,

The one below covers the options for HOW!

1236744_10151650693638963_800528593_n

WND EXCLUSIVE

OBAMA EMPLOYING THINK-TANK PLAN TO OUST ASSAD?

Critics warn of war doctrine that threatens national sovereignty

Published: 9-7-2013

author-image
 Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., is a WND senior staff reporter. He has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers “The Obama Nation” and “Unfit for Command.” Corsi’s latest book is the forthcoming “What Went Wrong?: The Inside Story of the GOP Debacle of 2012 … And How It Can Be Avoided Next Time.”
syria-Bashar-al-Assad

NEW YORK – The Obama administration’s proposal to attack Syria appears to have been outlined in a Brookings Institution report published in March 2012 that contemplated a range of options to destabilize Syria and depose the government of Bashar al-Assad.

The plan included launching limited military attacks and supporting the Free Syria Army as the group of choice among the various “rebel” forces dominated by al-Qaida, the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Islamic mercenaries from around the region.

Produced by the think tank’s Sabin Center in March 2012, “Middle East Memo #21,” titled “Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change,” proposed the United States should implement a policy aimed at destabilizing Syria with the explicitly stated goal of ousting the Assad regime.

Authored by four Brookings Institution-affiliated authors, the report said the “brutal regime of Bashar al-Asad (sic) is employing its loyal military forces and sectarian thugs to crush the opposition and reassert its tyranny.”

The authors’ underlying justification for removing the Assad regime was that it was engaging in acts of violence against civilians that violated international standards of human rights.

The memo, however, made clear that the real gain to be achieved in toppling Assad was not the humanitarian protection of the Syrian population but the removal from the Middle East of “Iran’s oldest and most important ally in the Arab world.” The report characterized the Assad regime as “a longtime supporter” of terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas that has “at times aided al-Qa’ida terrorists and former regime elements in Iraq.”

The memo’s characterization of U.S. foreign policy goals has prompted critics to charge it presented humanitarian concerns couched in the doctrine of “responsibility to protect,” a U.N. initiative asserting sovereignty is a responsibility, not a right, and the international community, therefore, has a right to ensure nations protect their populations from genocide, war crime, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.

The critics see the plan as a pretext designed to cover the real goal of destabilizing Syria to depose the Assad regime. The plan would provide weapons to rebel groups, combined with U.S. air attacks and the possibility of a U.S.-backed, internationally configured military invasion with ground troops.

The memo cautioned, however, that actually ousting Assad “will not be easy.”

“Although the Obama administration has for months called for Asad to go, every policy option to remove him is flawed, and some could even make the situation worse – seemingly a recipe for inaction. Doing nothing, however, means standing by while Asad murders his own people and Syria plunges into civil war and risks becoming a failed state.”

Even after acknowledging the Free Syrian Army, or FSA, “is more a brand than a meaningful, united force,” the Brookings Institution memo proceeded on the premise the FSA is the rebel force the Obama administration should champion.

The memo proposed six strategies the U.S. “should consider to achieve Asad’s overthrow”:

  1. Removing the Assad regime via diplomacy;
  2. Coercing the regime via sanctions and diplomatic isolation;
  3. Arming the Syrian opposition to overthrow the regime;
  4. Engaging in a Libya-like air campaign to help an opposition army gain victory;
  5. Invading Syria with U.S.-led forces and toppling the regime directly; and
  6. Participating in a multilateral, NATO-led effort to oust Assad and rebuild Syria.

The memo stressed that no one strategy was going to be endorsed, although the memo clearly indicates preferences, especially when it comes to evaluating the probability each particular strategy has to achieve the stated policy goal of ousting the Assad regime.

The diplomatic option is discounted as having a low probability of success, because Russia’s protection of the Assad regime makes it unlikely the U.S. could pass a U.N. Security Council resolution in any way critical of Assad.

The effort to coerce the Assad regime by sanctions and diplomatic isolation is also regarded as a strategy with a low probability of success, because it would most likely create a stalemate in Syria between government and rebel forces, which would benefit Iran and Russia.

Option 3: U.S. to support FSA in Syria

The third option, arming the Syrian opposition, is considered to have a greater probability of success, provided the U.S. arms the Free Syria Army.

“The United States and its allies could arm the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and other anti-regime forces to try to carry out regime change on their own,” the Brookings Institution memo specified. “Rhetorically, the United States is already moving in this direction, with repeated high-level statements noting that the United States will not rule out arming the opposition should current efforts fail.”

The memo went on to champion arming the FSA with the following language:

A U.S. or allied-armed opposition could gain victory in two ways: the FSA could defeat Syria’s armed forces and conquer the country, or it could continue to gain strength and dishearten regime stalwarts, leading to mass defections or even a coup that causes the regime to collapse. The FSA would then become the new Syrian army, subordinate to an elected Syrian government, with the mission of ensuring the country remains stable and has protected borders.

The Brookings Institution acknowledged that achieving the result will be difficult, noting:

The FSA, for its part, is currently poorly armed, disorganized, and divided from the broader political opposition movement. To make matters more complex, there is also a deep schism between FSA forces in Syria, doing the bulk of the fighting, and the FSA leadership outside it.

The memo cautioned a U.S. strategy of arming the rebels will also require “coalition strengthening” efforts by the U.S. to better organize the rebels:

Thus, if the United States were to embrace the policy of arming the opposition, a key initial step would be to make the opposition more coherent. This would entail first gaining a better understanding of Syria’s tribal, religious, ethnic, and community structures and their affiliations, and then using money, recognition, and arms as an incentive to push the FSA and Syrian opposition political groups like the Syrian National Council (SNC) to work together. The same tools would then have to be used to push for military integration and a unified command.

The Brookings Institution memo noted the cost and risk to the U.S. of the strategy would be low because the U.S. could avoid putting forces on the ground, and the cost of providing weapons could be represented as being in the millions of dollars, not billions.

The Brookings Institution cautioned, however, that in most cases, supporting opposition forces may foster instability in Syria but not topple the Assad regime.

Option 4: Massive air strikes

Massive U.S. air strikes would supplement arming the FSA.

The memo articulated the option as follows:

The theory here is that powerful American air support could tip the balance in favor of the FSA without miring American ground troops in the fight that will have to be waged for Syria’s cities and mountain fastnesses. In crass terms, the hope is that the United States could fight a “clean” war from 10,000 feet and leave the dirty work on the ground to the FSA, perhaps even obviating a massive commitment to Iraq-style nation-building. Because of the much greater cost and lengthy duration of post-war reconstruction, as well as the obvious unpleasant experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, the potential to relieve the United States from this task appears to be a key selling point for some of this policy’s advocates.

The memo said, however, that the problem was that Assad’s armed forces were already heavily engaged with the population and the opposition across the country, making it difficult to target them from the air.

Option 5: A U.S. invasion

A U.S. invasion was the least popular of the options: “No one currently advocating an invasion of Syria, the four authors of this memo included.”

Yet, the authors suggest the option would work: “Moreover, if the United States is absolutely determined to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians in Syria and/or overthrow the Alawi regime, an invasion may well be the only way to do so – it is certainly the only way that would be guaranteed to do so.”

The authors also expressed concern that if the U.S. were “to kick in the door, to oust the regime,” Washington would then have to commit to long and costly efforts to rebuild Syria after the war.

Option 6: International intervention, the ‘goldilocks’ solution

The international option entails a NATO invasion of Syria, with Arab financial support at a minimum, and the support of the Arab League substituting for an inability to get U.N. Security Council approval.

The Brookings plan may be the origin of Secretary of State John Kerry’s suggestion to the House Foreign Affairs Committee that Arab nations were willing to help bear the cost of military action against Syria.

The memo specified:

The Europeans and the Gulf Arabs have to be willing to pick up much of the tab. As noted above, rebuilding Syria after the events of 2011 and an invasion and occupation will be a major undertaking. Even if the reconstruction of Syria benefits from all the lessons learned in Iraq and suffers from none of its mistakes, it will still be enormously costly and well beyond Turkey’s means. Consequently, even though Turkey would be needed to put up much of the raw military muscle, it would be a mistake to ask them to shoulder the costs of that burden.

The advantage of the international plan, and the reason the Brookings Institution suggested it was “just right,” or “Goldilocks,” was that the U.S. would provide primarily logistics support and a few of the combat components involved in a war against Syria, but not all.

The memo also stressed some of the options “can be considered on an escalation ladder – some should be tried because they are less costly than more aggressive measures, and others should be pursued because they will be a component of a broader effort.”

In conclusion, the Brookings Institution memo cautioned against inaction: “As a final thought, it is always important to keep in mind that failing to act – even failing to decide – is an action and a decision.”

The four authors of the report include three from the Sabin Center for Middle East Policy, Daniel Byman, the director of research, along with Michael Doran and Kenneth M. Pollack, both senior fellows.

Pollack is the author of the 2005 book “The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America.”

Salman Shaikh is the director of the Brookings Doha Center and a fellow at the Sabin Center. Prior to joining the Brookings Institution, he worked with the U.N. for nearly a decade.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/obama-employing-think-tank-plan-to-oust-assad/#S5GQa2PQ5sPKThUV.99

943117_544129675625273_828076298_n

CRUMMY HOME INVASION – GOVERNMENT STYLE!

1004410_10151651182586489_969126343_n

The article below, is the most chilling information piece that I have read, recently!

We are, without any more doubts, DONE FOR!

This is the proverbial “last nail” in our coffin!

Obamacare Provision: “Forced” Home Inspections

Article posted at the link below:

August 14, 2013

 http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/08/obamacare-provision-forced-home-inspections/#Z5mLtceo5CpfyYaW.01

“Clearly, any family may be visited by federally paid agents for almost any reason.”

According to an Obamacare provision millions of Americans will be targeted. The Health and Human Services’ website states that your family will be targeted if you fall under the “high-risk” categories below:

Families where mom is not yet 21.

Families where someone is a tobacco user.

Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities.

Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States.

There is no reference to Medicaid being the determinant for a family to be “eligible.”

In 2011, the HHS announced $224 million will be given to support evidence-based home visiting programs to “help parents and children.” Individuals from the state will implement these leveraging strategies to “enhance program sustainability.”

Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown states,

“This is not a “voluntary” program. The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks.

A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to “intervention” in “school readiness” and “social-emotional developmental indicators.”

A farm family may be subject to “intervention” in order to “prevent child injuries.” The sky is the limit.

Although the Obama administration would claim the provision applies only to Medicaid families, the new statute, by its own definition, has no such limitation.

Intervention may be with any family for any reason.

It may also result in the child or children being required to go to certain schools or taking certain medications and vaccines and even having more limited – or no – interaction with parents.

The federal government will now set the standards for raising children and will enforce them by home visits.”

Part of the program will require massive data collecting of private information including all sources of income and the amount gathered from each source. A manual called Child Neglect: A Guide for Prevention, Assessment, and Intervention includes firearms as potential safety hazard  and will require inspectors to verify safety compliance and record each inspection into a database.

Last session South Carolina Rep. Bill Chumley introduced a bill, H.3101 that would nullify certain provisions of Obamacare. The bill would give the state attorney general the authority to authorize law enforcement to arrest federal agents for trespassing. It would make forced home inspections under Obamacare illegal in South Carolina. It passed in the House but died in the senate.

Kent Brown and Rep. Rick Quinn discuss “forced” home inspections under Obamacare in the video below.

home inv insp vid pic

To watch the video CLICK the link below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PsTUKf87OSw

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/08/obamacare-provision-forced-home-inspections/#ixzz2c5Ttrfze

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/08/obamacare-provision-forced-home-inspections/#ezsVzoy0oUbpPPjG.99

1b3c42d63c1c03f6bba8acba55969ff9

About Joshua Cook.  Joshua Cook lives in Travelers Rest SC. He received his BA from Southeastern University and MBA from North Greenville University.

View all posts by Joshua Cook → Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/08/obamacare-provision-forced-home-inspections/#ixzz2c6p60NEC

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/08/obamacare-provision-forced-home-inspections/#P2zVUVRTeC0LbdWE.99

CRUMMY COMMENTARY!!!

I don’t see The People rising up in outrage and throwing off the yokes of tyranny that have been placed on their shoulders, since 1913, but especially during the past five years!

We have no more freedoms,

We have no Constitution – because not the pres and not Congress, not the courts and definitely not the militarized police, abide by its edicts!

It has been relegated to an irrelevant, old, piece of paper that is not to be followed or upheld or defended!

If we don’t “Do An Egypt” here and now – our country is no more!

Screen_Shot_2013_04_02_at_11.03.33_PM

OPEN YOUR EYES SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING!

OPEN YOUR MIND SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT IS NEEDED!

ACT!

BECAUSE IF YOU DON’T – WHO WILL?

424816_4932875727977_1581409282_n

CRUMMY FOREIGN POLICY COLLAPSE!

HE’S BETWEEN A ROCK AND A REALLY HARD PLACE WITH NO WAY OUT!

Untitled2

August 12, 2013

Russia Makes a Fool Out of Obama, Over and Over

By Kim Zigfeld

Untitled

The worst has finally happened.  It took much longer than expected — nearly two thousand days — but Barack Obama’s foreign policy has finally collapsed, leaving Americans to gape slack-jawed at the smoking ruins.  Obama has undermined American influence and honor in ways that will be very difficult to repair.

Writing in the Moscow Times, Russian attorney Vladimir Berezansky plays the funeral dirge.  He calls Russia’s granting of asylum to Edward Snowden a “Suez moment.”  By this he means that China and Russia have effectively burst the bubble of American power in the same way that the U.S. burst the bubble of French and British power during the Suez crisis.  The latter two nations were never the same afterwards, and, Berezansky argues, neither will the USA be after Snowden.  Watching Obama’s helplessness as these two malignant dictatorships thumb their noses at America reminds one of nothing so much as the Iran hostage crisis and the Afghanistan invasion, where Jimmy Carter’s presidency ran aground.

Russia went out of its way to snub and provoke the United States and to humiliate Obama.  It took the minimum amount of time and gave Snowden the maximum number of benefits available.  Russia sent a clear message that it cares nothing for its relationship with the United States, has no fear of Obama’s retaliatory moves, and believes that there will be none anyway.  Obama replied by making it clear that he would not impose any tangible sanctions, such as an Olympic boycott, once again handing another easy victory to Putin.

Leon Aron, the dean of American Russia watchers, believes that Obama’s feeble response to Russia on Snowden, canceling a scheduled personal meeting with Putin, was a fatal display of weakness and a national disgrace.  Aron points out that Obama could have refused to attend the upcoming G-20 summit in Russia, where the meeting was scheduled, or he could have attended and strongly confronted Putin over what amounts to an act of war against the United States.  Predictably, Obama chose to do neither.  He’ll attend the summit, sparing Russian face, but won’t meet with Putin in protest, sparing Putin the post-meeting press conference where Obama calls him to account.  Instead of punishing Putin, Obama is basically doing him a favor.

Putin did the worst he could to the U.S. on Snowden, and the U.S. responded with maximum softness.  Obama’s message to Putin is clear: grab for more.  Russian political pundits were openly laughing at Obama’s feebleness.

Political Information Agency General Director Alexei Mukhin told Interfax:

The Soviet Union hosted the Olympic Games without the Americans in 1980. Nevertheless, everything was just excellent. Even if Washington makes a similar step during the Sochi Olympics, this won’t mean anything unpleasant for Russia. In 1980, the Americans were supported by a number of countries, but now this can’t be replayed, because of the EU’s position, among other things.  It looks like, in its desire to sting the Russian leadership, Washington has outsmarted itself in the situation surrounding Snowden. The Barack Obama administration has behaved like a capricious woman.

Of course, Obama never thought he’d need to show any backbone where Russia is concerned, so naturally he’s not ready to do so.  His “reset” policy was supposed to turn Russia into a cooperating partner on issues like Snowden, and it has blown up in his face, just as his critics predicted it would from the first.

Russia was happy to sign a nuclear weapons treaty that called on only the USA to cut weapons.  When Obama sought a second round that would actually impose some cuts on Russia, Putin told him to drop dead.

No progress whatsoever has been achieved in inducing Iran to abandon nuclear weapons.  To the contrary, Russia not only continues to support Iran, but is now helping Iran support Syria, and flouting U.S. policy there as well.

Putin has escalated an appalling crackdown on civil society, which has seen him arrest his leading critic, Alexei Navalny, on clearly political charges and sentence him to five years at labor.  America’s moral leadership in Russia has vanished; America has betrayed those who stand for its values.

The most utterly humiliating moment for Obama on Russia, however, has not been on the foreign policy front.  Russia recently passed a law making it illegal for any homosexual to act gay in public.  This law makes gay Olympic athletes subject to arrest in Sochi, Russia, during the 2014 Winter Olympics scheduled to be staged there.  The Kremlin has said it will enforce the measures.  This has resulted in a furious backlash.  Celebrities from Harvey Fierstein to Steven Fry to Mr. Sulu have openly called for a boycott, and 88 U.S. congressmen have signed a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry demanding action.  As a result, Obama faces the lowest moment of his presidency: he must either side with the gays and follow the path of Jimmy Carter into an Olympic boycott, or he must side with his “reset” policy and permanently alienate a key element of his political base.  There is no way out.

Everywhere Obama has turned, Putin has been there to stick a finger in his eye.  Just like Neville Chamberlain, Obama thought the power of his personality could convert a malignant dictator into a reasonable partner.  Just like Chamberlain, Obama’s policy of appeasement has collapsed into humiliating failure, with devastating consequences for future generations to bear.

Ironically, in a recent interview with Jay Leno, Obama didn’t disagree when Leno accused Putin of acting like Hitler on the homosexual question.  This equation is percolating throughout the internet these days.  Obama’s bitterness at being betrayed by Pooty was palpable.  Yet despite acknowledging Putin’s evil, Obama is unable to confront it.  He can respond only with confused half-measures that just make the situation worse.  This is precisely the problem Obama’s critics were worried about when he took the Oval Office: his total lack of foreign policy credentials left him adrift and unable to recognize that his balloon was losing altitude until it spectacularly crashed.

On internet forums, Obama’s critics have taken to writing his name commencing with the numeral zero rather than a letter, and that just about sums it up.  So far, Obama hasn’t even had the fortitude to fire his ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, the architect of the ruinous reset, whose service in Russia has been a Keystone Cops fiasco from the first moment.  When Snowden walked into Moscow, McFaul should have walked out.

As Hitler could not have wished for better than Chamberlain, Putin could not have dreamed of more than Obama.  The president won’t make the highest American values part of his relationship with Russia, maybe because he doesn’t share them, and he won’t stand up for American values and honor by making Putin pay dearly for crossing them, maybe because he doesn’t care about them.

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

THE DAYS OF GREAT STATESMEN ARE GONE!

With every new fiasco and scandal, that becomes painfully obvious!

1074258_545315908859230_618041982_o

 This is not our foreign policy, but merely a foreign concept!

CRUMMY CLOWARD-PIVEN STRATEGY UP AND RUNNING!

581235_516790938368247_1737966617_n

SPEND, OVERLOAD, DESTROY!

1094987_390728491027220_309963026_n

EVERY ANGLE THEY CAN THEY ARE DESTROYING AMERICA…

John Gaultier

Food Stamps, Unending Welfare, and now Disability.

( Yes there are legitimate reasons a person must go on disability… but look at the graph..it is impossible that all of a sudden.. Americans all ate the same food.. or crashed in the same car … or worked at the same Factory and had the same accident…. or WHAT ??? This is not statistically possible except and unless it was a planned scam! )
ITS AN OBAMA CABAL SCAM TO OVERLOAD THE SYSTEM AND GET A WHOLE BUNCH OF VOTERS WHO WILL VOTE FOR HIM AS LONG AS HE ASSURES THEM NEVER ENDING BOGUS DISABILITY.. HE HAS ALREADY DONE IT FOR WELFARE.. AND FOR FOOD STAMPS)>>>>Fraud And Disability Equal A Multibillion Dollar Black Hole For Taxpayers<<<<<<<<
A parasite has insidiously invaded the body of America. It has fed and grown large on nutrients from government handouts and now is enervating its host, our capitalist system.Since our president entered the White House in January 2009 through September of this year 5.9 million people have been added to the SSDI or Social Security Disability program. That compares with less than 2.5 million jobs created during the same period. According to Social Security Administration data, currently including spouses and children, SSDI rolls have swollen to a bloated 10.9 million. A record one in fourteen workers is now on the SSDI dole. It’s like checking in a hotel and never leaving. Of the 653,877 souls that departed the program in 2011, 36% departed by being gracious enough to die, while 52% reached retirement age and seamlessly switched to other benefits. Only 6% returned to work and 3.6% exited the program due to medical improvement. According to Congressional Research Services this program cost taxpayers $128.9 billion in 2011 and was in deficit to the tune of $25.3 billion. Funded by the 1.8% payroll tax and comprising nearly 18% of all social security spending, at current pace the trust fund may be exhausted by as early as 2015.
FHA Will Cost Taxpayers $150 Billion Richard Finger Richard Finger Contributor
Facebook: What’s It Really Worth Richard Finger Richard Finger Contributor
The Patent Millionaires: Striking It Rich With High Stakes Litigation Richard Finger Richard Finger Contributor
Buffett On Taxes: Self-Interest And Cheap Virtue Richard Finger Richard Finger ContributorI pulled up http://www.ssa.gov/ (then click disability) to look for myself at the so called “Listing of Impairments” and if length is an indicator for program efficacy, then SSDI would be one of the world’s greatest government safety net plans. There is a kaleidoscope of ailments from which to choose. Under Section 12, “Mental Disorders” section of the Disability Evaluation there is, statistically, a qualifying syndrome for all of us, not just in America, but in the entire universe. This one category alone printed out to twelve full pages.Certainly each of us carries familiarity with subsection 12.04, “Affective Disorders”. It would be tiresome to redact the entire section but some examples are in order. Ever had “decreased energy”, “feelings of guilt or worthlessness”, “difficulty concentrating”, “sleep disturbance”, “anhedonia” (I had to look it up), or psychomotor agitation (I didn’t bother to look it up). If you answered yes to any one of these infirmities and it results in “difficulties maintaining social functioning”, or “marked difficulties maintaining concentration”, or “repeated episodes of decompensation” (I don’t know and don’t care), then bingo you are eligible for disability. If you don’t qualify on my above snippet, don’t despair, there are literally dozens of other possible maladies of the mind listed and most of us, if we want, can fall neatly into one or more of the mental illness baskets.Somehow, if you are classified to be of sound mental composition, perhaps an examination of your Musculoskeletal System (in Section 1) might strike gold. Basically this section is all things “back” related. From my own experience and talking to doctors, virtually every person in their thirties and older will show “bulging” disks or some other form of spinal degeneration. It is quite difficult to medically argue against back pain. Fortunately for claimants, fibromyalgia has recently been added to our list of eligible diseases under SSDI. Often if your head hurts or you have muscle aches of indeterminate origins and doctors can’t specifically diagnose any name disease, they may call it fibromyalgia. Thank goodness SSDI can fill this void, since because of its non-specificity of symptoms, health insurance companies often turn down these highly subjective claims.

The Numbers Prove The Point

The numbers substantiate a shift to these hard to (dis)prove afflictions. Over the past three decade’s awards for mental illness climbed from 16% of total claims to one third by 2010. During the same period “back pain” increased its market share from 13 to 28%. It is a system begging for abuse. A study by the NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) found that for workers with low paying jobs, SSDI including Medicare replaced, on average, 90% of working income. (SSDI recipients get free Medicare after two years of receiving benefits.) In times of tepid job growth, like now for instance, wages are often stagnant, so if there is a choice between working at minimum wage versus doing nothing and earning almost equal amounts, sloth trumps exertion much more often than not. What are other explanations why at this juncture of a theoretically improving economy is our nation weighed down by such a bloated system? Well secondly, the qualification standards have been severely watered down. As evidenced by above statistics “back pain” is questioned much less today. It is not difficult to claim otherwise when a person says they are depressed. Also, more attention is paid to the applicants claims of pain and special trust is placed in the report made by the applicants own physician. Third, once invited into the club, why leave. In 1983, 163 per 1,000 people terminated benefits. Jump ahead to 2011 and that number has collapsed to only 74 per 1,000. In a crummy job market the incentive is to stay put and live off the fat of the government. A fourth reason is that the labor participation rate, at 63.7%, is at its lowest levels in generations. This translates that of the millions who have thrown in the towel looking for employment, many have elected to enter the SSDI lottery. This leads us to the huge issue of fraud.

The Role Of Fraud

“We know there are individuals who will purposely withhold or fabricate information to collect government benefits they are not entitled to receive”. Those are the words of the Office of the Inspector General from their hearing on “combating disability waste, fraud, and abuse”. The Senate conducted their own investigation which concluded that fully one quarter of all disability insurance claims decisions were flawed, improperly addressing “insufficient, contradictory, and incomplete evidence, thus increasing the chances of rewarding nondisabled persons.” The study also determined the Social Security Administration (SSA) failed to establish that claimants were properly screened to certify that they satisfied metrics in the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) medical “Listing of Impairments” to meet eligibility requirements that would qualify them for the DI program. The Inspector General’s office identified billions in fraud. The Senate study implies many billions more in abuses. Much of the ongoing program cheating comes from those who continue to collect disability payments but are stealthily employed on the side. Not surprisingly, some of the SSDI wounds are self-inflicted. The SSA loses hundreds of millions continuing to pay those who were honest and notified that they were returning to work. The agency is supposed to conduct CDR’s or Continuing Disability Reviews to check in and determine the status of the disabled. I know it surprises everyone that there is a huge backlog and SSA is severely understaffed in this area. Probably the biggest area of abuse is those who gingerly slip through the vetting net and shouldn’t be getting disability payments in the first place. The contrived complexity of the SSDI system has spawned a cottage industry of doctors and specialized legal teams to navigate the byzantine multi-tiered documentation process. While the integrity of most lawyers and doctors is beyond reproach there are a few bad apples that make their living gaming the system. Remember what your mother preached, “if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again”. This small nugget of wisdom pays off especially when applying for SSDI. Often applicants may be turned down on the first or second attempt to receive benefits. Many times it is only through a court hearing that cases get resolved. Per a study by D. Autor and M. Duggan as many as 40% of all disability awards comes through the appeals process. Some judges gain the reputation of never seeing a claim they didn’t like………never refusing anyone. They also found in one recent year the SSA paid out as much as half a billion dollars to claimants attorneys. It seems to me it is always in the best interest of the lawyer to take a case to trial; it’s a win for him/her no matter what the verdict.

1077573_198370166989659_1207195604_o

Broken System

As of August past the disability award (not including Medicare) was about $1,111 per month. So the incentive to do some menial dead end job loses appeal when the new job might or might not have health benefits…….certainly not as grand as Medicare.

The SSDI program is a microcosm of what ills the job market in America. When our president took office 40% of the population received some sort of government assistance. That number now stands at over 55%. There is an alphabet soup of welfare programs that create disincentive to seek gainful employment. Zerohedge.com published an excellent chart demonstrating when you add in all the free government goodies that a single mother with one child with gross income of $29,000 receives, that she effectively ends up with $57,327 in net income and benefits. She is better off than the mom with gross income of $69,000 who after taxes has a net income and benefits of $57,045. Some of the giveaways include SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program formerly known as Food Stamps. If boredom sets in, look up CHIP or TANF. There is also Medicaid and the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
Have a look for yourself. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-27/when-work-punished-tragedy-americas-welfare-state Zerohedge.com

published another chart on 11/22/12 demonstrating that a single parent family of three earning minimum wage ($14,500) per year has more disposable income than the family making $60,000 per year. The Wall Street Journal last week published some of the exchanges between Speaker Boehner and the President where the President kept repeating that he did not think the country had a spending problem. My translation is that he has no intentions of reducing any of the runaway programs that insidiously degrade our economic structure. The new tax increases on the “rich” are projected to bring $600 billion in revenues to the Treasury Department over the next decade. Deficits are projected to be $6.8 Trillion or elven times as much.

While there is certainly intransigence on both sides of the aisle, the President as chief of state needs to rise above and be a leader. If not addressed in a meaningful way, our profligacy will one day in the not too distant future destroy our country. The Federal Reserve’s rigged artificially low interest rates are the only firewall standing between us and bankruptcy. Imagine if short term rates were 5% and the 10 year treasury was sitting at 7%. Imagine servicing our $16 trillion debt at these rates. The time to act is now …

REVOLUTION OR SECEDE… THIS IS GOING TO END BADLY!!!

Normally I write a beginning and an end to the pieces I repost here but the above article says it all!

If this country does not wake up and quickly, there will be no going back because there will be nothing to go back to!

1098530_169284673258300_1186968802_n

On a related note – these statistics are appalling!

THE NEW WELFARE MAP

going down photo

b499391.jpg

Make sure you read to the bottom…

Quite an eye opener…

These 11 States now have More People on Welfare than they do Employed!
Last month, the Senate Budget Committee reports that in fiscal year 2012, between food stamps, housing support, child care, Medicaid and other benefits, the average U.S. Household below the poverty line received $168.00 a day in government support. What’s the problem with that much support? Well, the median household income in America is just over $50,000,which averages out to $137.13 a day. To put it another way, being on welfare now pays the equivalent of $30.00 an hour for a 40-hour week, while the average job pays $20.00 an hour.
Furthermore:
There are actually two messages here. The first is very
interesting, but the second is absolutely astounding – and explains a lot.

A recent “Investor’s Business Daily” article provided very
interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International
Health Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years
after diagnosis:

U.S. 65%

England 46%

Canada 42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received
treatment within six months:

U.S. 93%

England 15%

Canada 43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it
within six months:

U.S. 90%

England 15%

Canada 43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within
one month:

U.S. 77%

England 40%

Canada 43%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million
people:

U.S. 71

England 14

Canada 18

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are
in “excellent health”:

U.S. 12%

England 2%

Canada 6%

And now for the last statistic:

National Health Insurance?

U.S. NO

England YES

Canada YES

Check this last set of statistics!!

The percentage of each past president’s cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet.
You know what the private business sector is; a real-life business, not a government job. Here are the percentages.
T. Roosevelt……………….. 38%

Taft………………………….. 40%

Wilson ……………………… 52%

Harding……………………… 49%

Coolidge……………………. 48%

Hoover………………………. 42%

F. Roosevelt………………… 50%

Truman……………………… 50%

Eisenhower……………. …. 57%

Kennedy……………………. 30%

Johnson…………………….. 47%

Nixon………………………… 53%

Ford………………………….. 42%

Carter……………………….. 32%

Reagan………………………. 56%

GH Bush…………………….. 51%

Clinton …………………….. 39%

GW Bush…………………… 55%

Obama……………………….. 8%

This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration:
only 8% of them have ever worked in private business!

That’s right! Only eight percent—the least, by far, of the
last 19 presidents! And these people are trying to tell our big
corporations how to run their business?

How can the president of a major nation and society, the one
with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk
about business when he’s never worked for one? Or about jobs when he has
never really had one? And when it’s the same for 92% of his senior staff
and closest advisers? They’ve spent most of their time in academia,
government and/or non-profit jobs or as “community organizers.”
They should have been in an employment line.

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

― Margaret Thatcher

198468

No nation can survive once it becomes inverted and has more people on welfare than are working, 

and we are at the tipping point – if not already past it!

This doesn’t help either, that more than 90% of the jobs being created are either government or part time work, and that is not going to change, but will continue to get worse, unless the Affordable Health Care Act (Obummercare) gets defunded, defeated and dissolved!!!

1011417_574530552585185_219961774_n

“Molon Labe!”

CRUMMY $ COLLAPSE COMING!

TAKE HEED AND PREPARE!

THE FISCAL TRAIN IS APPROACHING THE CLIFF!

obama-debt-train

http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/the-dollar-collapse-not-whether-but-when/#d8QvylIpuMOphfiv.99

THE DOLLAR COLLAPSE: NOT WHETHER, BUT WHEN

Exclusive: Lord Monckton explains what’ll happen when the crunch finally comes

Published: 7-30-2013

cmonckton_avatar  LORD MONCKTON

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, high priest of climate skepticism, advised Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, wrote leaders for the Yorkshire Post, was editor of the Catholic paper The Universe, managing editor of the Telegraph Sunday Magazine, assistant editor of Today, and consulting editor of the Evening Standard. He invented the million-selling “Eternity Puzzles,” “Sudoku X” and a promising treatment for infections. See the Science & Public Policy Institute.

monckton_logob

I make no apology for repeating my warning that, thanks to the dismal Obama administration, Uncle Sam is bankrupt. Serious financial commentators are now predicting riots in the streets and even, perhaps, outright economic collapse.

The U.S. dollar, the world’s reserve currency for almost half a century, is its reserve currency no more. Each dollar bill the administration prints is just as much a forgery as that bogus Hawaiian birth certificate.

Every two months, the administration prints or borrows more money than the combined annual profits of the 100 biggest publicly traded companies in America.

Every second, the U.S. government spends $64,000 it doesn’t have. The $64,000 Question is not whether but when the collapse will come. The crash of 2008 was a walk in the park. This is the big one. And the frankly communist outlook of the current administration means it is temperamentally disinclined to take any of the steps that are now essential to save America.

Trouble is, the GOP have little or nothing to say about this. For 10 successive suspicious weeks, U.S. federal debt has remained at just under $17 trillion, just under the debt ceiling set by your elected representatives in Congress.

Yeah, right. Dream on. The Treasury is fiddling the books. Fraudulently. According to my calculations, federal debt has risen not by zero but by $400 billion in those 70 days.

Here is just one of the ways the Treasury can get away with making $400 billion vanish. Under an act intended to allow officials to mint commemorative coins (not exactly a legitimate function of the Treasury), the Secretary Jack Lew can issue platinum coins of any denomination he wants.

To keep the debt apparently below the congressional limit even though it is rising at $40 billion a week, all he has to do is mint a half-ounce coin with a face value of $2 trillion and deposit it with the Fed.

Bingo! Not just 70 days’ squandering but a whole year’s socialist profligacy fully “paid for,” just like that. And Congress none the wiser.

I don’t know whether this is how Lew is cooking the books. I don’t know how he’s cooking them. But I do know that he’s cooking them. You don’t need to have a Ph.D. in macroeconomics to work that one out.

I am angry – and I’m not even a U.S. citizen. Every red-blooded American should be furious when in-your-face corruption as outrageous as this prevails at the highest level in the institution whose job is to account for your money honestly.

Today the U.S. has more government debt than any country in the history of the world. More debt than every country in the European Union – combined.

To minimize the interest on all that debt, the Fed has lowered its benchmark interest rate 10 times since August 2007, from 5.25 percent to somewhere between 0 and 0.25 percent. But it can’t go on doing that, because worldwide no one believes in the dollar. So interest rates are going to have to go up.

Porter Stansberry, an investment expert based in Baltimore, explains what will happen then: “What if the average real interest rate ends up being just 4 percent and we pay it off over 30 years, like a mortgage? We’ll spend $34.3 trillion just to repay what we owe right now. If the rate ends up being 6 percent, we’ll spend $43.1 trillion.”

The crunch will come when Uncle Sam’s creditors either completely stop accepting dollars in repayment or greatly discount the value of these new dollars.

The New York Post puts it this way: “The U.S. dollar is getting perilously close to losing its status as the world’s reserve currency. Should it cross the line, the 2008 financial crisis could look like a summer storm.” The Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal have said the same.

Sam Zell, America’s 60th richest man, says this: “My single biggest financial concern is the loss of the dollar as the reserve currency. I can’t imagine anything more disastrous to our country. I’m hoping against hope that it ain’t gonna happen, but you’re already seeing things in the markets that are suggesting that confidence in the dollar is waning. I think you could see a 25 percent reduction in the standard of living in this country if the U.S. dollar was no longer the world’s reserve currency. That’s how valuable it is.”

The Chinese, via the official Xinhua news agency, have said: “International supervision over the issue of U.S. dollars should be introduced and a new, stable and secured global reserve currency may also be an option to avert catastrophe caused by any single country.”

James Rickards, the author of “Currency Wars,” says this: “If the currency collapses, everything else goes with it: Stocks, bonds, commodities, derivatives and other investments are all priced in a nation’s currency. If you destroy the currency, you destroy all markets – and the nation.”

You heard it here first.

Receive Lord Christopher Monckton’s commentaries in your email

BONUS: By signing up for Lord Christopher Monckton’s alerts, you will also be signed up for news and special offers from WND via email.

  • Name*FirstLast
  • Email*
    Where we will email your daily updates
  • Postal code*
    A valid zip code or postal code is required
  • Click the button below to sign up for Lord Christopher Monckton’s commentaries by email, and keep up to date with special offers from WND. You may change your email preferences at any time.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/the-dollar-collapse-not-whether-but-when/#AjPjVyPfte1RuJYK.99

We The People Need To Stop The Train –

Before It TOTALLY Wrecks Our Country And Our Lives!

424816_4932875727977_1581409282_n