Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Republicans Sign Legal Brief Supporting Gay Marriage.. WE ARE BEING EATEN FROM THE INSIDE!! SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

BREAKING!!!......Republicans Sign Legal Brief Supporting Gay Marriage.............


At least 75 top Republicans have signed a legal brief to be submitted to the Supreme Court this week, arguing that gay marriage is a constitutional right, according to The New York Times, which got a copy of the document.
The court is preparing to take on the subject of gay marriage late next month, when it will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of California's gay marriage ban, Proposition 8, and the Defense of Marriage Act. It is expected to render a decision in early summer.
The signers of the document are mostly out-of-office Republicans or former top officials, including former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, former Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio), former Massachusetts Govs. William Weld and Jane Swift, and former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman.
Read More:
This is potentially a big deal. It gives cover to a swing justice or two who may be sitting on the fence about marriage equality.
It is telling how many of these politicians are no longer in office and how many of them opposed gay marriage when they were in a positions of power and had to worry about elections.
It speaks volumes to the fear Republicans have of the extremists who wield so much influence in their party and how easily they cave to it.

Just think of your spouse, if you currently now have one. Like many people, I know what my spouse is about and I celebrate it everyday. She tells me what she would never tell her family. We are a team.

I'm thankful that regardless of trusts and wills, the law defaults to my oversight of her wishes and needs should anything happen to her. I will honor "her" wishes, no matter what. I'm sure many of you know this feeling.






Currently gay couples, in most states, do not have this basic right. National recognition of the validity of gay marriage will codify this right, in a way that wills, trusts, or contracts cannot compare.

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Instead of worrying about the deficit or the unemployment lets worry about Gay marriage instead cause that is more important than millions out of work.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Republicans doing their best to save their political lives at the risk of losing the 30 million Christians which will of course eliminate the Republican Party from contention. Either way the Republicans can blame themselves for destroying the Republican Party.
Who cares except some tiny minority that already have every right listed under the bill of rights where does it end ?  This move is to legalize sodomy which even animals don't practice aren't humans suppose to be superior to animals.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
If you click through to the source article on NYT, you see a better description of the importance of this document. As noted above, it is an brief laying out an argument in support, but based on more conservative viewpoints. The intent is to help persuade more conservative leaning justices.

This is no small matter. The Supreme Court, by its nature, does often look at prevailing social opinion about topics such as this. We are in the middle of a shift in thinking similar to the 1950s and 1960s. Support for marriage equality is growing rapidly, and it is quite strong among voters under 30. The Supreme Court is going to consider this, even if some of the justices won't admit to it. That the support is coming from multiple political perspectives is going to reinforce that.

One reason that the justices will consider these things is that part of the legal wrangling focuses on the level of scrutiny that is used for determining constitutionality. Often, laws must make distinctions based on certain groups, such as legal age to drive a car. Some distinctions are more suspect than others, and thus the test of constitutionality varies. This variation in the test is referred to as the level of scrutiny.

When a law makes distinctions based on a protected class, such as race, then typically the government must show that the law serves a compelling (very important or crucial) purpose. This is called strict scrutiny. Certain other classifications, such as gender, are subject to what is called intermediate scrutiny, which requires that the law serve an important purpose (but not necessarily a crucial one). Other classifications require only that the law make some rational sense, even if it isn't proven to be accurate.

This last level, put simply, amounts to "there are some distinctions that make sense, and laws need to be allowed to make these distinctions". For example, age based laws are very common. Historically, orientation has typically fallen in this last level. In other words, until recently, courts have viewed orientation as an unprotected class. Part of what is at issue is whether that level of scrutiny should be raised.

Showing that orientation is not merely choice and also society as a whole views this as a matter of equality could go a long way to helping someone like Roberts, or possibly even an Alito, to shift their views.

Monday, February 25, 2013

HELP ...PLEASE...PLEASE ...PLEASE CALL...THEN SHARE THIS... ORLY TAITZ NEEDS PATRIOTS TO HELP....

URGENT!!! - From Dr. Orly Taitz; 



>>>>>>>>>YOUR HELP IS NEEDED!!!!!!<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I have an appointment with one of these GOP Congressmen on the JUDICIARY COMMITTE on March 5th at 11:30. I NEED APPOINTMENTS with the OTHER 22 GOP CONGRESSMEN ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE on the same day (March 5th) or a day before or after. PLEASE, KEEP CALLING THEIR OFFICES.

➔ ➔ ➔ PLEASE CALL THE OTHER 22 GOP CONGRESSMEN ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE on list below til there is a SECURE APPOINTMENT!!!!!! or EMAIL YOUR STATE CONGRESSMAN LISTED!!


>>Specifically, we are contacting you regarding Dr. Orly Taitz’s case in question which is Edward Noonan, et al v. Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State that was to be before the Supreme Court on February 15, 2013 and the decision was to be made February 19, 2013 but did not make it.
Clerks of the Supreme Court never forwarded to 5 out of 9 Justices one single page of pleadings, they also did not forward to any of the Justices the Supplemental Brief.

There is evidence of employees of the Supreme Court of the United States hiding from justices of the Supreme Court pleadings and documents submitted by plaintiffs and attorneys, removing cases from the electronic docket, evidence of bogus conferences of justices being reported to the public, when no such conferences took place and the justices being clueless about the very existence of the cases, evidence of criminal complicity of the employees of the Supreme Court and treason in the most serious cases dealing with national security.

Remind them that we have 40,000 signatures on our petition and all the supporting evidence of the >>most egregious National security breach in the history of this nation.

Please tell them to make an appointment with Dr. Orly Taitz on/before/after March 5th (except 11:30 March 5th). Have them contact Dr. Orly Taitz at:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA),
- EMAIL: Kathryn.Rexrode@mail.house.gov
- JUDICIARY MAINLINE (202) 225-5431 (leave a message there and they will ALSO TRANSFER YOU to the comment line, and leave a message there!)

Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Office Hours and town meetings: district office at (262) 784-1111.
- Email Form: http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/contact/email.htm

* Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee Chairman Trent Franks (R-AZ),
- DC phone/fax at right/bottom of email form: https://franks.house.gov/contact-me/email-me

*Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL),
- DC phone/fax at right of email form: https://forms.house.gov/write/bachus/email-me.shtm...
* Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL)
- ph/fax #s: http://desantis.house.gov/contact/offices; Email form: http://desantis.house.gov/contact
* Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA),
- DC phone/fax at bottom of email form: http://issa.house.gov/contact/contact-me
* Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA),
- phone/fax bottom/left of email form: https://dougcollins.house.gov/email-me
* Rep. Steve King (R-IA),
- DC phone/fax bottom/left of email form: https://forms.house.gov/king/webforms/issue_subscr...
* Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID),
- ph/fax #s: http://labrador.house.gov/contact-me/;
- Email form: https://labradorforms.house.gov/email-me
* Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC),
- Ph: 202-225-3065/Fax: 202-225-8611/email: http://coble.house.gov/contact/zipcheck.htm
* Rep. George Holding (R-NC),
- phone/fax at mid-bottom of email form: https://holding.house.gov/contact/email-me
* Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nevada),
- ph/fax #s: http://amodei.house.gov/contact/; Email form: https://amodeiforms.house.gov/contact-us
* Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH),
- DC phone/fax at bottom of email form: https://chabotforms.house.gov/email-me
* Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH),
- phone/fax at bottom of email form: http://jordan.house.gov/contact/
* Rep. Steve Marino (R-PA),
- phone/fax at mid-bottom of email form: https://marino.house.gov/contact-me/email-me
* Rep. Keith Rothfus (R-PA)
- phone/fax at mid-bottom of email form: http://rothfus.house.gov/contact
* Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC),
- http://gowdy.house.gov/contact/officeinformation.h... email form: http://gowdy.house.gov/contact/
* Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TEXAS),
- phone/fax at bottom of email form: http://farentholdforms.house.gov/contact/
* Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX),
- phone/fax at bottom of email form: http://gohmert.house.gov/contact/
* Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX),
- phone/fax at bottom of email form: https://forms.house.gov/poe/webforms/zipauthen_con...
* Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX),
- phone/fax at bottom of email form: http://lamarsmith.house.gov/contact/
* Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT),
- phone/fax at bottom of email form: https://chaffetz.house.gov/contact-me/email-me
* Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Virginia),
- DC phone/fax: http://forbes.house.gov/contact/ - email: http://forbes.house.gov/contact/zipauth.htm

Gun Control has racist roots. Obama and the Oligarchs want to disarm the restive population

Leftist Liberals are planning to disarm the masses !!There is no Equality without the Equalizer.

It's about Equality.
You won't see President Obama or his gun-grabbing cohorts admitting it, but the simple fact is that disarmament in America has historically been racially motivated.
Yes, you read that right. Gun Control has racist roots.
According to the George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal Vol. 2 (1991): 67 titled Gun Control & Racism:
    The history of gun control in America possesses an ugly component: discrimination and oppression of blacks, other racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, and other "unwanted elements," including union organizers and agrarian reformers. Firearms laws were often enacted to disarm and facilitate repressive action against these groups.
    The first gun control laws were enacted in the ante-bellum South forbidding blacks, whether free or slave, to possess arms, in order to maintain blacks in their servile status. After the Civil War, the South continued to pass restrictive firearms laws in order to deprive the newly freed blacks from exercising their rights of citizenship.
    Another old American prejudice supported such gun control efforts, then as it does now: the idea that poor people, and especially the black poor, are not to be trusted with firearms.
It is unconscionable that in 2013, so-called progressives are quietly permitting laws to stand that disproportionately diminish the rights of minorities. The late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was blocked by segregationists when he tried to get his concealed carry permit, because they knew equal strength to defend oneself leads to societal equality. Sadly, gun control advocates today are de facto fighting for that same inequality.
And as you can see in our short video, African-Americans and other minorities are still the primary victims of gun control legislation in America.


Anti-gun Mayors Michael Bloomberg and Rahm Emanual preside over the two of the largest cities in America. Both Chicago & New York's populations have a majority of minorities AND both cities have the most restrictive gun laws in the country.
DO MICHAEL BLOOMBERG AND RAHM EMANUEL WANT TO DISARM AFRICAN AMERICANS AND HISPANICS?

Bloomberg and Emanuel are closet racist with a socialist agenda to empower the Oligarchs who cannot control an armed populace. 

The gun control they are pushing has real life racial consequences.
“It doesn't matter where you live, whether in the city, suburbs or a rural area,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “all law abiding citizens should be able to defend themselves and their families.”
The Equal Gun Rights video spot, website and campaign (produced in collaboration with Larry Ward of Political Media – The Gun Appreciation Day Founder) highlight the disproportionate impact of gun control laws on African-Americans, Latinos and other minorities, and show how it leaves large groups unable to defend themselves, their families, or their businesses.
The video shows citizens from different parts of the country commenting on their local gun laws, providing a vivid contrast between people who live in regions with laws that enable citizens to exercise their rights, and those who reside in areas with restrictive gun laws which typically have larger minority populations, including Chicago, Washington D.C. and New York City.

Self defense is more than a Civil Right…it is a Human Right.
The simple fact is that gun control has historically disarmed far more African Americans than any other demographic group.

Valerie Jarrett's Father-In-Law Reveals Start Of Muslim Purchase Of U.S. Presidency...

Bombshell Obama Vetting: 1979 Newspaper Article By Valerie Jarrett's Father-In-Law Reveals Start Of Muslim Purchase Of U.S. Presidency...

1979 article by Vernon Jarrett about Khalid al-Mansour     The Vernon Jarrett syndicated column of Nov. 6, 1979, that appeared in the St. Petersburg Evening Independent. It originally appeared in the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 2. This image was pieced together from screen shots of the St. Petersburg Independent page available for viewing in the Google Newspaper Archive. Jarrett was the father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett, President Obama's closest adviser.1979 article by Vernon Jarrett about Khalid al-Mansour
The Vernon Jarrett syndicated column of Nov. 6, 1979, that appeared in the St. Petersburg Evening Independent. It originally appeared in the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 2. This image was pieced together from screen shots of the St. Petersburg Independent page available for viewing in the Google Newspaper Archive. Jarrett was the father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett, President Obama's closest adviser.
Why would Muslim oil billionaires finance and develop controlling relationships with black college students? Well, like anyone else, they would do it for self-interest. And what would their self-interest be? We all know the top two answers to that question: 1. a Palestinian state and 2. the advancement of Islam in America. The idea then was to advance blacks who would facilitate these two goals to positions of power in the Federal government, preferably, of course, the  Presidency. And why would the Arabs target blacks in particular for this job? Well, for the same reason the early communists chose them as their vanguard for revolution (which literally means “change”) in America. Allow me to quote Trotsky, in 1939:  “The American Negroes, for centuries the most oppressed section of American society and the most discriminated against, are potentially the most revolutionary element of the population. They are designated by their historical past to be, under adequate leadership, the very vanguard of the proletarian revolution.”  Substitute the word “Islam” for the words “the proletarian revolution,” and you most clearly get the picture, as Islam is a revolutionary movement just like communism is. (Trivia: it is from this very quote that communist Van Jones takes his name. Van is short for vanguard. He was born “Anthony”). In addition, long before 1979, blacks had become the vanguard of the spread of Islam in America, especially in prisons. 

 

  Interestingly, in context with the fact that this article was written by her father-in-law, Valerie Jarrett has an unusual amount of influence over Obama (along with personal security that may be even better than his, another unusual and intriguing bit of business here). And equally interesting is that Obama, who may have been a beneficiary of this Muslim money, and may now be in this Muslim debt, has aggressively pursued both of the Muslim agendas I cited above. And, also equally interesting, is that Obama has paid a king’s ransom for court ordered seals of any such records of this potential financing of his college education, and perhaps, of other of his expenses. 

 

  Lastly, it’s very important to note that the main source for the article is Khalid Mansour, “the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.” (Valerie Jarrett, by the way,  was born in Iran . The one country protected by Obama from the sweep of the Arab Spring.) Now all of this may seem sensational, but let’s face facts. What makes it most disturbing is that not only is it all logical, but it suddenly makes a lot of previously confusing things make perfect sense.  –   Pat DollardWhy would Muslim oil billionaires finance and develop controlling relationships with black college students? Well, like anyone else, they would do it for self-interest. And what would their self-interest be? We all know the top two answers to that question: 1. a Palestinian state and 2. the advancement of Islam in America. The idea then was to advance blacks who would facilitate these two goals to positions of power in the Federal government, preferably, of course, the  Presidency. And why would the Arabs target blacks in particular for this job? Well, for the same reason the early communists chose them as their vanguard for revolution (which literally means “change”) in America. Allow me to quote Trotsky, in 1939: “The American Negroes, for centuries the most oppressed section of American society and the most discriminated against, are potentially the most revolutionary element of the population. They are designated by their historical past to be, under adequate leadership, the very vanguard of the proletarian revolution.” Substitute the word “Islam” for the words “the proletarian revolution,” and you most clearly get the picture, as Islam is a revolutionary movement just like communism is. (Trivia: it is from this very quote that communist Van Jones takes his name. Van is short for vanguard. He was born “Anthony”). In addition, long before 1979, blacks had become the vanguard of the spread of Islam in America, especially in prisons. Interestingly, in context with the fact that this article was written by her father-in-law, Valerie Jarrett has an unusual amount of influence over Obama (along with personal security that may be even better than his, another unusual and intriguing bit of business here). And equally interesting is that Obama, who may have been a beneficiary of this Muslim money, and may now be in this Muslim debt, has aggressively pursued both of the Muslim agendas I cited above. And, also equally interesting, is that Obama has paid a king’s ransom for court ordered seals of any such records of this potential financing of his college education, and perhaps, of other of his expenses.

Lastly, it’s very important to note that the main source for the article is Khalid Mansour, “the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.” (Valerie Jarrett, by the way, was born in Iran. The one country protected by Obama from the sweep of the Arab Spring.) Now all of this may seem sensational, but let’s face facts. What makes it most disturbing is that not only is it all logical, but it suddenly makes a lot of previously confusing things make perfect sense. – Pat Dollard

Excerpted from Daily Interlake: Searching old newspapers is one of my favorite pastimes, and I have tried to use them many times to shed light on current events — or to inform readers about how the past is prologue to our very interesting present-day quandaries.
Recently, I came across a syndicated column from November 1979 that seemed to point 30 years into the future toward an obscure campaign issue that arose briefly in the 2008 presidential campaign.
Though by no means definitive, it provides an interesting insight, at least, into how Chicago politics intersected with the black power movement and Middle Eastern money at a certain point in time. Whether it has any greater relevance to the 2012 presidential campaign, I will allow the reader to decide. In order to accomplish that, I will also take the unusual step of providing footnotes and the end of this column so that each of you can do the investigative work for yourself.
The column itself had appeared in the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Evening Independent of Nov. 6, but it was the work of a veteran newspaperman who at the time was working for the prestigious Chicago Tribune and whose work was syndicated nationally. (1)
So far as I know, this 1979 column has not previously been brought to light, but it certainly should be because it broke some very interesting news about the “rumored billions of dollars the oil-rich Arab nations are supposed to unload on American black leaders and minority institutions.” The columnist quoted a black San Francisco lawyer who said, “It’s not just a rumor. Aid will come from some of the Arab states.”
Well, if anyone would know, it would have been this lawyer — Donald Warden, who had helped defend OPEC in an antitrust suit that year and had developed significant ties with the Saudi royal family since becoming a Muslim and taking the name Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour.
Al-Mansour told Jarrett that he had presented the “proposed special aid program to OPEC Secretary-General Rene Ortiz” in September 1979, and that “the first indications of Arab help to American blacks may be announced in December.” Maybe so, but I looked high and wide in newspapers in 1979 and 1980 for any other stories about this aid package funded by OPEC and never found it verified. (Continued after the jump)
You would think that a program to spend “$20 million per year for 10 years to aid 10,000 minority students each year, including blacks, Arabs, Hispanics, Asians and native Americans” would be referred to somewhere other than one obscure 1979 column, but I haven’t found any other word of it.
Maybe the funding materialized, maybe it didn’t, but what’s particularly noteworthy is that this black Islamic lawyer who “for several years [had] urged the rich Arab kingdoms to cultivate stronger ties to America’s blacks by supporting black businesses and black colleges and giving financial help to disadvantaged students” was also the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.
That tale had surfaced in 2008 when Barack Obama was a candidate for president and one of the leading black politicians in the country — Percy Sutton of New York — told an interviewer on a Manhattan TV news show that he had been introduced to Obama “by a friend who was raising money for him. The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas. He is the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men. He told me about Obama.” (2)
This peculiar revelation engendered a small hubbub in 2008, but was quickly dismissed by the Obama campaign as the ditherings of a senile old man. I don’t believe President Obama himself ever denied the story personally, and no one has explained how Sutton came up with this elaborate story about Khalid al-Mansour if it had no basis in fact, and in any case al-Mansour no longer denies it. (3)
Back in 2008, while actually supporting Hillary Clinton in the New York primary, Percy Sutton was interviewed on TV and said that he thought Barack Obama was nonetheless quite impressive. He also revealed that he had first heard about Obama 20 years previously in a letter where al-Mansour wrote, “there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends up there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?”
Sutton concluded in the interview, “I wrote a letter of support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly.”
Until now, there really has been no context within which to understand the Sutton story or to buttress it as a reliable account other than the reputation of Sutton himself as one of the top leaders of the black community in Manhattan — himself a noted attorney, businessman and politician. But the new discovery of the 1979 column that established Khalid al-Mansour’s interest in creating a fund to give “financial help to disadvantaged students” does provide a clue that he might indeed — along with his patron, Arab Prince Alwaleed bin Talal — have taken an interest in the “genius” Barack Obama.
It also might be considered more than coincidence that the author of that 1979 newspaper column was from Chicago, where Barack Obama settled in 1986 a few years after his stint at Columbia University. It is certainly surprising that the author of that column was none other than Vernon Jarrett, the future (and later former) father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett, who ultimately became the consigliatore of the Obama White House.
It is also noteworthy that Vernon Jarrett was one of the best friends and a colleague of Frank Marshall Davis, the former Chicago journalist and lifelong communist who moved to Hawaii in the late 1940s and years later befriended Stanley and Madelyn Dunham and their daughter Stanley Ann, the mother of Barack Obama. (4)
And to anyone who has the modicum of a spark of curiosity, it is surely intriguing that Frank Davis took an active role in the rearing of young Barack from the age of 10 until he turned 18 and left Hawaii for his first year of college at Occidental College in Los Angeles. (5)
It is also at least suggestive that Obama began that college education as a member of the highly international student body of Occidental College in 1979, the same year when Vernon Jarrett was touting the college aid program being funded by OPEC and possibly Prince Alwaleed. The fact that President Obama has studiously avoided releasing records of his college years is suggestive also, but has no evidentiary value in the present discussion. (6)
The nature of Vernon Jarrett’s relationship to Khalid al-Mansour is likewise uncertain, but it is very likely they had known each other as leaders of the black civil-rights movement for many years. Under his previous name of Donald Warden, al-Mansour had founded the African American Association in the Bay Area in the early 1960s. He had also helped inspire the Black Panther Party through his association with black-power leaders such as Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. Seale, of course, had a famous association with Chicago later, when he was part of the Chicago Eight charged with conspiracy and inciting to riot at the Democratic National Convention in 1968. (7)
In any case, it doesn’t matter if Vernon Jarrett and Khalid al-Mansour had a personal relationship or not. For some reason, al-Mansour had used Jarrett as the messenger to get out the word about his efforts to funnel Arab oil money to black students and minority colleges at about the same time that Barack Obama began his college career. That doesn’t mean either Jarrett or al-Mansour knew Obama at that time, but eight years later when Obama was a rising star in Chicago, a friend of Bill Ayers and Valerie Jarrett, it is much more likely that he did indeed have the assistance of very important people in his meteoric rise. The words of Percy Sutton about what al-Mansour told him regarding Obama certainly have the ring of truth:
“His introduction was there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends back there… Would you please write a letter in support of him? (That’s before Obama decided to run.) … and he interjected the advice that Obama had passed the requirements, had taken and passed the requirements necessary to get into Harvard and become president of the Law Review. That’s before he ever ran for anything. And I wrote a letter in support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them that I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly…” (2)
What possible significance could all this have? We may never know, but Vernon Jarrett, back in 1979, thought that OPEC’s intention to fund black and minority education would have huge political ramifications. As Jarrett wrote:
“The question of financial aid from the Arabs could raise a few extremely interesting questions both inside and outside the black community. If such contributions are large and sustained, the money angle may become secondary to the sociology and politics of such an occurrence.” (1)
He was, of course, right.
As Jarrett suggests, any black institutions and presumably individuals who became beholden to Arab money might be expected to continue the trend of American “new black advocacy for a homeland for the Palestinians” and presumably for other Islamic and Arabic interests in the Middle East. For that reason, if for no other, the question of how President Obama’s college education was funded is of considerably more than academic interest.

Department of Homeland Security ( Obama Army ) BUYS 2500 ARMORED FIGHTING VEHICLES

A CIVILIAN AGENCY ARMING ITSELF TO THIS EXTENT IS *UNPRECEDENTED* IN U.S HISTORY!



► Obama speaking OPENLY about the need for creating a "Civilian National Security Force" just as powerful as the military:
http://www.youtu.be/_fO-usAlqak

► Obama arming DHS to the teeth: 450 Million rounds of hollow-point bullets and another 175 million .223 caliber rifle ammo massive ammunition purchase:
http://bit.ly/Hvu7Ik
(UPDATE: Now up to 2 BILLION rounds... for perspective: we only shot 5.5 million rounds/month during the Iraq war. 2 Billion = 24 year "Iraq War". Update story: http://bit.ly/Vrc5gf).

► DHS Buys 7000 assault rifles:
http://exm.nr/VoRRRj

► DHS Buys 2500 armored fighting vehicles:
http://bit.ly/PtCtDG

► DHS Buys millions of dollars worth of target practice posters with pictures of armed civilians (including: pregnant women, elderly, children etc.) from a company named "Law Enforcement Training, Inc.":
http://bit.ly/13asFp8
http://bit.ly/W91hAC

I don't care if you're the most die-hard Obama sycophant. You cannot deny the disturbing pattern that's emerging here. Take the Obama blinders off and wake up to the real agenda that's behind all those fancy speeches. If not for your own sake, for your children, and your children's children.

If you're an Obama voter, Obama doesn't care about you. He used you to get in power in order enact his sinister agenda, just like many other Marxist demagogues before him throughout recent history (look at Cuba, Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia etc., almost exactly the same pattern, and exactly the same outcome). There's no shame in admitting you were duped, as long as you wake up before it's too late. This isn't about republicans vs democrats, liberals vs conservatives, or left vs right. This is about ALL our futures! Obama is toiling hard to destabilize and CRASH the US economy, so that from its ashes he can "fundamentally transform" the United States of America just like he always said he was planning to do (only you thought it meant something else). Since coming into office, Obama has more than DOUBLED Bush's deficits after promising to cut them in half by the end of his 1st term; and with no slowdown in sight. No one is THAT incompetent unless they're seeking to intentionally derail the US economy. Pay attention to what this man DOES not what he SAYS. This will affect all of us, regardless of political affiliation. We have to stop the bickering and start focusing on our common enemy and our common interests. Will you keep being in denial about all of this until it's too late? Or are you willing to consider the possibility and start thinking for yourself instead of having someone else tell you what to believe?

CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE:
http://on.fb.me/XQVnDV

TAKE ACTION:
Contact your REPS in Congress and demand answers!
202-224-3121 Senate, 202-225-3121 House

SHOULD YOU BE PAYING FOR AL JAZEERA ON CABLE ? YOU ARE PONYING MONEY FOR CHANNELS YOU DO NOT WANT TO VIEW... AND IN FACT DESPISE... THIS IS THE SCAM!

STARVE THE LEFTY MEDIA ON CABLE....

According to Gallup,  39 percent of the country identifies themselves as conservative and 37 percent as moderate, only 23 percent see themselves as liberal. And yet out of all the networks, only FOX News brings a conservative perspective into the conversation. On the other hand, CNN, MSNBC, Current TV, and others are on the spectrum of left of center to unabashed progressive. And Now Current TV is Al-Jazeera America. 

John McCain and Hillary Clinton have put out promo ads for this despicable Channel.

39+37=76  Thats 76% or so that will not want Al Jazeera and MSNBC on the air... an we are all still paying for it!!

Each month when customers pay their cable or satellite bill, a portion goes to each of those networks. That means that people who don’t agree with the progressive values of hosts on MSNBC, Current TV, and Al-Jazeera are having a portion of their money being used to fund those networks. However, those same customers are left with only one option that comes close to representing their own values.
“Here’s what I think. If you write a check that goes to support networks that overwhelming represent a viewpoint you don’t agree with, the least your cable or satellite operator can do is listen to you,”



DiClemente was arguing that the bundled approach to cable TV–whereby subscribers get dozens or even hundreds of channels for one big fee, no matter how many networks they actually watch–wasn’t going anywhere for quite some time. If ever.
But if you’re the kind of person who thinks we’re headed for an a la carte model in which programmers compete directly for consumer dollars, you can use this as fodder for your argument. Because you can see just how much you’re paying for stuff you don’t want.
Take a look above... you are subsidizing LEFTY CHANNELS....

But this gives you a very good idea of where the money goes–to a lot of channels you likely never, ever, look at.
You’ll find this particularly upsetting if you don’t watch sports. Because sports channels account for about 40 percent of cable fees.
And you’ll also be upset once you realize that the broadcast networks–GE’s (GE) NBC, News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox, Disney’s (DIS) ABC and CBS (CBS)–are being added and you may only want Fox.


Hence, last winter’s Fox vs. Time Warner Cable (TWC) standoff, and the Disney vs. Cablevision (CVC) fight that ended in time for the Oscars last night.

As I’ve said before, I think that many cable viewers are probably okay with most of the bundle–or at least unwilling to foot the bill for real a la carte pricing. But maybe if you waved this list in front of them, they might rethink that.

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Obama and his 1 percent killing America for the Future Oligarchs. Revolution is the Only Solution.



In his first term President Obama was criticized for trash-talking the 1-percenters while enjoying the aristocracy of Martha’s Vineyard and the nation’s most exclusive golf courses.
Mr. Obama never quite squared his accusations that “millionaires and billionaires” had not paid their fair share with his own obvious enjoyment of the perks of “corporate jet owners,” “fat cat bankers” and Las Vegas junketeers.
Now, that paradox has continued right off the bat in the second term. In the State of the Union, Mr. Obama once more went after “the few,” and “the wealthiest and the most powerful,” whom he blasted as the “well-off and the well-connected” and the “billionaires with high-powered accountants.”
Like clockwork, the president then jetted to West Palm Beach, Fla., for yet another golfing vacation at one of the nation’s priciest courses, replete with lessons from a $1,000-per-hour golf pro to improve the presidential putting.
The rest of the first family jetted off on their own skiing vacation to elite Aspen, Colo., where nobody accepts that at some point they’ve already “made enough money.” Meanwhile, below the stratosphere, unemployment rose to 7.9 percent for January — the 49th consecutive month it has been 7.8 percent or higher. The economy shrank in the last quarter of 2012, gas is back to almost $4 a gallon, and the government continues to borrow almost $4 billion a day.
Today, lots of liberal grandees attack the rich and yet do their best to act and live just like them.
Take financial speculator and leftist billionaire, George Soros, who is back in the news. Mr. Soros is able to fund several progressive think tanks that go after the 1 percent because he is the most successful financial buccaneer of the age — notorious as “the man who broke the Bank of England” and was convicted of insider trading in France. The Soros family investment firm’s most recent speculating coup was betting against the Japanese yen. That made Mr. Soros $1.2 billion in just three months — enough capitalist lucre to keep funding Media Matters and other attack-dog progressive groups for years to come.
Facebook co-founder and Obama campaign organizer Chris Hughes just bought The New Republic and has rebranded the magazine as an unapologetic progressive megaphone.
How odd that hip Facebook just confessed that it paid no federal or California state income taxes for 2012 on its $1.1 billion in pretax profits on its U.S. operations alone. Odder still, Facebook will probably receive a federal tax refund of about $429 million. Apparently Facebook’s “well-connected” found some “high-powered accountants” to write off their stock options as a business expense.
Perhaps Treasury Secretary-designate Jack Lew should have a look at Facebook’s tax contortions. He should be familiar with the big-money paper trail, given that Mr. Lew himself took a nearly $1 million bonus from Citigroup after it had received billions of dollars in federal funds to cover its gargantuan losses.
Mr. Lew, like his tax-dodging predecessor, Timothy F. Geithner, has a propensity for doing just the opposite of what the president used to preach against. Mr. Obama, remember, warned Wall Streeters not to take bonuses after their failing companies received federal money.
Mr. Obama also derided dubious offshore Cayman Islands tax shelters. Yet he apparently forgot to tell that to Mr. Lew, who invested in a fund registered to the same Potemkin Cayman Islands building that Mr. Obama had used as a campaign prop to bash the 1-percenters.
One of the nation’s best-known class warriors is former U.S. Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. of Chicago, who for years has damned the wealthy for their ill-gotten gains. He pleaded guilty to fraud charges after he and his wife were accused of siphoning off $750,000 from their campaign accounts to pay for an assortment of 1-percenter extravagances like a $43,000 Rolex watch.
Today’s leftists like the high life as much as their demonized conservative rivals. The more they damn the bad “millionaires and billionaires,” apparently the less guilt they feel about living it up in Palm Beach or Aspen, paying no taxes, offshoring their profits or wearing Rolex watches.
The vast growth of the federal government has splashed so much big money around New York and Washington that even muckraking progressives can’t resist. Loud redistributionist rhetoric offers the necessary vaccination shot that makes privileged leftists immune from any criticism — or guilt — over indulging in tax avoidance, billion-dollar speculation or aristocratic tastes.

George Orwell long ago noticed the same thing, when in “Animal Farm” the pig elite loudly damned reactionary humans even as they sought to copy them by walking on two legs.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. His new book, “The Savior Generals,” will appear this spring from Bloomsbury Press.

Saturday, February 23, 2013

FREAKING WHITE LIBERAL LOSERS... AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.. GET SUCKERED INTO WRITING ON THEIR FACES...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The picture above is my Take on the Issue Whats yours ???

 

 NEWS BULLETIN:

Wisc. University Stands By Campaign To Teach Diversity By Writing ‘Unfair’ On White Students’ Faces



The University of Wisconsin Duluth-Superior is standing by a controversial campaign launched in 2012 to increase public awareness about racial favoritism by writing “unfair” on students’ faces along with a variety of grievances supposedly shared by minorities against Caucasians. The university released a statement last week defending the project and saying that the campaign is prepare to enter its second phase.

“The creative materials for the campaign’s initial phase, launched in January 2012, were designed to be very provocative,” reads a statement released by the University. “UW-Superior understood and expressed serious concern about the nature of these materials. However, rather than abandon a well-intentioned effort, UW-Superior chose to continue working with the other community partners to help refocus the campaign’s future direction.”

The statement makes it clear that this initiative was not concocted by the University alone. It was launched as part of a coalition effort conceived by a group of community sponsors.

The statement accuses the media of misleading reports that suggest the university would teach the values embodied in the “unfair campaign” to students. They insist that UW Duluth-Superior does not teach “unfair” in the classroom.

Finally, the University announced that “unfair” is entering a second phase. “Racism: Ignore It And It Won’t Go Away,” was launched summer of 2012,” the statement reads. “At a recent series of community meetings, residents of the community have already begun to chart its future course.”
Not all the original partners are standing by the “unfair campaign.” Last year, the University of Minnesota ceased their support for the awareness effort calling it “divisive” and “alienating.”

Sequester cuts domestic spending by only 2.5 cents on the dollar.


OBAMA IS FREAKING KENYAN SCAREMONGER.. SEQUESTRATION WILL NOT LAY OFF FIRST RESPONDERS AND TEACHERS AND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS.

UNFUCKING BELIEVABLE BULLSHIT FROM THE KENYAN... ALL THE DOOM AND GLOOM IS BULLSHIT PATRIOTS...

Fact: The sequester cuts domestic spending by only 2.5 cents on the dollar.

AS KRAUTHAMMER SIAD... This is the ridiculously hyped armageddon since the Mayan calendar. In fact, it looks worse than the Mayan disaster. Look, this, as you say, can be solved in a day, in an hour by allowing a transfer of funds. It’s incredibly soluble, easily soluble. And the president is the one who ought to propose it. He won’t, of course, because he is looking for a fight and not a solution. But secondly, look at this in perspective.

In terms of the gross domestic product of our economy this is .03, it’s a third of 1% of our domestic economy. On the domestic side, overall, it’s 2.5 cents on the dollar. And overall, on the non-defense side, it’s a penny-and-a-half on the dollar of reductions. Here we are with a debt of $16 trillion and the argument today is if we cut a penny-and-a-half on non-defense spending in one year it’s the end of the world. If so, we are hopelessly in debt and we’re going to end up like Greece.

As I say....OBAMA had all those first responder standing behind as useful idiot no brainer "props"!! Does any of those fucking assholes in their pressed uniforms that the state and local budgets pay for FIRST RESPONDERS ?? The Federal Budget Sequestration has nothing to do with their budget cuts. OK ???????????? FREAKING USELESS STUPID SHITS... Posing behind the NEGRO as props...!

HEY ASSHOLES ON THE LEFT..

Firefighters are not paid with Federal Dollars
School Teachers are not Paid with Federal Dollars
Police are not paid with federal Dollars
Firefighters are not paid with Federal Dollars

Just fat cat WASHINGTON BUREAUCRATS ARE !! LIKE THE TSA AND THE OTHER SHITS AT ALL THE OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES WILL NOT GET A RAISE.... AND THAT IS GOOD !!

BESIDES  2013 Cuts Are $44 Billion, Not $85 Billion in CUTS ON A 3.8 TRILLION BUDGET FROM WHICH WE ARE ALREADY BORROWING 46 Cents of every dollar to prop up the OBAMA/US HOUSE OF CARDS

courtesy John B. Taylorcourtesy John B. TaylorEconomist John B. Taylor charts what sequestration will look like when it comes to federal spending levels. The short version: A lot like federal spending levels absent sequestration, which is widely reported as reducing outlays in FY2013 by about $85 billion or so.The first thing to note is that the $85 billion figure that gets bandied about overstates this year's cuts due to sequestration by about $40 billion. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in its February 2013 report on the budget outlook, "Discretionary outlays will drop by $35 billion and mandatory spending will be reduced by $9 billion this year as a direct result of those procedures [sequestration]; additional reductions in outlays attributable to the cuts in 2013 funding will occur in later years."
You got that? When President Obama scaremongers about national parks closing and TSA lines getting longer - and when Republicans bitch and moan about the military having to set up bake sales to buy bombers - they are already misstating basic facts. The sequester will slice $44 billion off this year's budget, not $85 billion.
CBO figures that total spending in FY2013 will come to around $3.55 trillion (see table 1-1), or roughly the same as FY2012, when it came to $3.53 trillion. In 2014, assuming the sequester happens, CBO figures total spending will be $3.6 trillion before it jacks up considerably to $3.8 trillion in 2015 and then up to over $4 trillion in 2016. As Taylor's chart (above, right) shows, this isn't that very much different at all than what would happen absent sequestration. Taylor favors keeping the sequester but add the sensible proviso that the president and the Congress should allow all affected agencies to the flexibility "to adjust their budgets within the overall sequester totals." That blunts the criticism that the sequestration is itself too blunt an instrument.
courtesy John B. Taylorcourtesy John B. TaylorYou'll note in Taylor's chart a line marked "pro-growth reform," which is substantially lower than the the CBO baseline or spending "without sequester." Taylor explains that's the amount of spending that would happen if the government pursuied a "fiscal consolidation strategy" that reduced the debt-to-GDP ratio in a way that would return spending as a share of the economy to pre-crisis levels. In work done with John Cogan, Volker Wieland, Tobias Cwik, Taylor simulates the effects of cutting spending on the larger economy and finds that
The positive short run economic effects occur even in the model with price and wage rigidities for several reasons including that the lower spending (as a share of GDP) can reduce expected tax rates and raise permanent after-tax income compared to what would be expected under current policy. This stimulates consumption. The gradual nature of the government spending reduction, which allows time for private spending to adjust, avoids the negative aggregate demand effects that traditional Keynesian models emphasize. 

How does cutting government spending spur consumption and growth? After all, if we count most government spending in GDP, significant cuts to government spending will by definition shrink the economy, right? Taylor notes the incremental but believable cuts in spending signal to businesses and consumers that massive tax hikes or truly disruptive reductions in spending are less likely to happen. As a result, economic activity proceeds. An added bonus is that misallocated resources - more likely via government spending than by private actors - get freed up as well.
That gap on the right-hand side of the chart (Figure 1, above right) between "Baseline" and "Fiscal Consolidation Strategy" is essentially another way of marking the huge price exacted on future economic growth by high levels of government spending and debt. As Veronique de Rugy and I have noted in various articles (like this one and this one), research by Carmen Reinhart, Vincent Reinhart, and Kenneth Rogoff argues that maintaining levels of gross debt greater than 90 percent of GDP for five years at a time reduces future economic growth by as much as 1 percentage point a year for 20-plus years. We've been in such a "debt overhang" situation since 2008 and the cumulative effect over the coming years will likely be substantial. In the chart to the right, the blue line represents expected economic growth when gross debt is lower than 90 percent of GDP and the red line shows reduced growth due to debt overhang.
Who exactly is up for having 24 percent less stuff in, say, 2036? Start building it into your retirement plans, because that's where we're heading if spending and debt patterns keep going the way they're headed. As the CBO illustrates it, there's really no scenario under current trends in which revenue catches up to spending.
CBO



SO LETS HAVE A REVOLUTION TO CLEAN UP THE COUNTRY OF THESE FEAR MONGERING ANTI AMER
ICAN PIECES OF CRAP!!!