Saturday, July 27, 2013

Ok my patience with Congress expired....!

Get busy already we elected y'all to serve and protect the US Constitution and Bill of Rights...the whole damn Obama administration is tearing them to your job #Impeach or get the hell out of the way and let the Cav take care of the problemo! WTF over...!

Cue the Cav:

Obama Nominee Under Investigation For Intervening on Behalf of Hillary’s Brother

Alejandro Mayorkas 

Many companies in the US do business with foreign companies and governments.  That business often requires people from other countries to travel to the US.  In order to do so, they need to obtain a visa before entering the US.  Those visa requests or applications are handled by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
Gulf Coast Funds Management, a financing company is one of those companies that works with people from around the globe.  They applied for a US visa for the vice president of Huawei Technologies to come to visit them.  Agents at the USCIS denied the visa application because Huawei Technologies has been under investigation by the House Intelligence Committee for possibly having close ties with Chinese intelligence services.
Gulf Coast filed an appeal with the USCIS, but the appeal office also denied the visa application.  Allegations have been made that, at that time, Alejandro Mayorkas, Director of the USCIS, intervened on behalf of Gulf Coast Funds Management to approve their visa application.
The intervention came to light when Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) received a series of emails from a USCIS whistleblower.  The source of the emails told Grassley that they felt the intervention was politically motivated and that Gulf Coast was a well connected company.

Now would it surprise you to find out that Gulf Coast Funds Management was run by Anthony Rodham, youngest brother of Hillary Rodham Clinton?
Mayorkas and the USCIS are now under investigation by the Inspector General’s office for the ethics of his intervention and for their mismanagement of the EB-5 program, misuse of position and conflicts of interest.
President Obama has nominated Mayorkas to be the next Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Department.  However, Republicans such as Tom Coburn (R-OK) and the ranking Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee are trying to put the nomination on hold pending the outcome of the Inspector General’s investigation.

The only question now is if Senator Harry Reid will try to extort senate Republicans into confirming Mayorkas before the investigation has been completed like he did on the last batch of Obama’s nominations?

Chris Matthews' Fantasy Love Affair With The President

 On MSNBC's Thursday-night edition of Self-Loathing White Guy with a Psychosexual Fixation on Obama, known in the TV listings as Hardball with Chris Matthews, the titular Mr. Matthews, who appears to have fallen off the wagon, nearly broke down in tears as he rambled his grievances that Republicans don't share his devoted, unconditional love for the man with whom he fantasizes about sharing a motel room.
Calling to mind the syndrome of an abused wife (or a Mrs. Weiner) who stands up for her man no matter what, Matthews used his closing segment to stand up for his man, beginning with, "There are too many people on the American right who hate the very notion of Barack Obama in the White House."

Yes, that is true. Why wouldn't we hate the notion of a man who was a self-admitted Marxist-sympathizer, who still today embraces the social Marxism of Black Liberation Theology, and whose respect for human life begins and ends with the belief that newborn babies are “punishments,” as he phrased it?
Chris Matthews: "Was there ever a time . . . that his haters on the right have stopped in their tracks and said, 'Well, good for him. I liked the way he did that'?"
Well, we on the right usually judge a man based on both the content of his character and on merit. If there is nothing done that we believe praiseworthy, why should we praise those things? Is Matthews calling for affirmative-action compliments? Obama is black, so we all have to dig deep down and try to come up with something nice to say about him?

Okay, here's one that I know everybody on the right supported Obama in doing: giving the go-ahead, however reluctant he may have been, to kill the Somali pirates who were holding hostage American Richard Phillips. The other thing Obama did that I, for one, appreciated: removing the federal ban on slaughtering horses for human consumption. I don't want to eat horse, but I also don't want the government to tell me I can't.
Chris Matthews: "[T]hink about this man’s life, about how hard he worked at school, how he achieved so highly at school, how he married so well and so faithfully, how he’s fathered two great daughters and kept them, protected them, been a truly great father to them, been a true partner in his marriage, treated his office with such respect and dignity . . . ."

Ignoring that Matthews very clearly wishes he were Michelle, yes, let's think about Barack Obama's life:
Did he work hard at school? The dazed look on his face as he brings a joint to his lips in those high-school photos suggest not.
Did he achieve "so highly" in college? Hard to know, considering Mr. Transparency still hasn't unsealed his transcripts. For all we know, he could have graduated with worse grades than President George W. Bush. Of course we know where Bush got the money for college, something that can't be said about Obama.

We do know Obama obtained a law degree, which he put to use once in defending the voter-fraudsters known as ACORN. Then again, he was disbarred of that law degree, just like our last Democratic president.
Did he marry well? This is subjective. If you like your women to have the build of a football player and arms that can reach around a redwood, and to have an ingrained disdain for white people, yeah, Obama married exceptionally well.
I don't know Obama's quality as a father, but I have no reason to doubt he is an excellent one to Malia and Sasha, aside from the values he will be instilling into them.
Chris Matthews: "We live in a country where a good chunk of the country hates its elected leader and won’t really . . . tell you why."
Okay, fine, we're racists. Happy? But in what way does that delegitimize our criticisms of Obama's policies? The fact is that we do tell you why we don't like the man—and I truly don't; if I ever met him, I wouldn't shake his hand—but you just refuse to accept our reasons, all of which reasons will be equally valid the next time we have a president with such policies as Obama.

U.S. Federal Court Hits President Barack Hussein Obama with three charges of abuse of office

U.S. Federal Court hits President Barack Hussein Obama with three charges of abuse of office. The charges present…ed are detailed and damning. The indictments assert that President Obama “acted as a dictator” to exceed his powers of office to appoint officials behind the back of Congress during a recess period.

Via: Diana Nottingham In a staggering announcement an Associated Press report declared: “President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate last year to appoint three members of the National Labor Relations Board, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.”
Mr. Lyndon Larouche, a well-connected journalist and political activist characterized the court’s assessment as “probably the greatest indictment ever seen on a standing president throughout history.” White House press secretary Jay Carney reacted strongly against the charges declaring, “we believe that the president’s recess appointments are constitutionally sound.” However, the federal court seems to disagree having put in place ” a list of charges presented as conclusions” according to Larouche.

The court appears to take the view that no such recess was in place. As such, the president was in violation of Section 5 of Article 1 of the Constitution that stipulates that a president cannot make appointments without the consent of the Senate. The failed Obama gambit had hoped to apply the section of the Constitution that reads: “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”
The Washington Post reports on the seriousness of this abuse of office, “is more than an unconstitutional attempt to circumvent the Senate’s advise-and-consent role. It is a breathtaking violation of the separation of powers and the duty of comity that the executive owes to Congress.” Crucially, no other president in history has ever tried to force through such alleged “ recess appointments” while Congress is still in session.

*The offenses occurred last year when President Obama opted to bypass Congress and unilaterally appoint three people to seats on the National Labor Relations Board . He also made Richard Cordray (pictured with Obama) head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (after the Senate blocked action on his nomination). Cordray’s appointment, made on the same date, has been challenged in a separate court case.
Lyndon Larouche has characterized the events as probably the worst violation by any sitting president trying to use a “procedural loophole.” Jubilant Republicans are already looking to set in motion impeachment proceedings. Larouche, who studied the court indictments, believes Obama’s offenses are “far graver” than those that led to the impeachment and removal from office of disgraced Republican president, Richard Nixon, after the Watergate scandal. *


Obama IS Trayvon…a Moron?

The idea of a president of the United States saying, “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon” is ridiculous.
But leave it to Barack “I Need Street Cred” Obama to actually pretend that he could have BEEN Trayvon. The kid who grew up with more white people around him than Mitt Romney.
For you naysayers, I dare you to find pictures of Obama with more blacks around him than whites, until he hit the mean streets of Chicago. By then, he had faked his blackness, and been adopted by communists who knew that the half-black articulate and clean non-threatening black man needed to appear to be from the hood.

Thank God for Michelle and Reverend Wright.
In his “I am Trayvon” press conference, Obama had the opportunity to be a leader. However, instead of showing leadership in the aftermath of the Zimmerman verdict and steering young black kids away from the behavior that got Trayvon killed, Obama said he could have actually BEEN a young street thug, ignorant girlfriend included.
What white president would speak out of the death of some white trash punk…wait…besides Jimmy Carter?
Would Bush adopt Timothy McVeigh and speak of the angst that white people feel? Would he then hold an “impromptu” presser in order to say, “35 years ago, I could have blown up a federal building?” Would he ask for nationwide vigils to be held in honor of said punk?

Read More:

Obama Upstaged

The baby beat Barack. It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s…Carlos Danger? And Reid thinks rape is funny. All this — plus — Back to school, Bette. Presented in 1080 hi-def, FOR FREE! It’s The Great Eight, from the Personal Liberty Digest™!

The Democrats Destroyed Detroit

The Democrats Destroyed Detroit
Don’t look now, kids; but while you were laughing at the irony of the same Democrats who ignored the bloodcurdling murder of Baby Antonio Santiago gathering to demand “justice” for Trayvon Martin, Detroit provided one of the greatest “teachable moments” in American history. Despite enjoying the better part of a century’s worth of compassionate, caring and community organized leadership by the best Democrats money could satisfy — in combination with a primary industrial base shot through with the very soul of Big Labor — Detroit skidded through the safety cones of taxpayer-funded bailouts and slammed back into the bridge abutment of bankruptcy.
And let’s be clear about this: The Motor City isn’t dying. It’s dead. Sure, there are still residents skulking around the once-proud burg; but census figures show that their numbers are nearly 60 percent lower than they were a half-century ago. What remains is an urban zombie, a hollow-eyed corpse shuffling along in a mindless search for taxpayer funds.

But this isn’t news. Detroit’s demise didn’t sneak up from behind us while we were distracted by exploding Chevy Volts. Actually, in a sense, it did. We were told that Detroit had put its troubles in the rear view mirror. Thanks to a government takeover led by President Barack Obama, the worthless executives were expunged from the model line like Pontiac Azteks. In their place, even more worthless bureaucrats whose private-sector experience extended to coffee with the Undersecretary of Commerce’s scheduler joined hands with Big Labor to continue churning out the mind-numbingly depressing fleet cars that combine none of the competitors’ pizzazz with none of their quality control. Case in point: Pre-bailout, the Chevy Malibu versus the Toyota Camry. Post-bailout, the Chevy Malibu versus the Toyota Camry.
In truth, Detroit’s downward spiral began decades ago. Following the post-World War II boom; the Nation’s industries underwent an inevitable downturn. Since the Federal government had yet to get into the “saving union thugs from their own incompetence” business, companies like Packard shuttered their plants. Not long afterward, as the city reeled from the economic blow, a police raid of an illegal speakeasy so enraged the patrons that they started a race riot, which would ultimately hold the “burning down our own city” title until South Central Los Angeles claimed it a quarter century later. Not only did damages exceed $80 million (about $560 million in 2013 dollars); but they sent 2,500 businesses to “quitsville,” 43 people to the morgue and a huge portion of the productive population to the suburbs. Universally respected economist Thomas Sowell noted:
Before the ghetto riot of 1967, Detroit’s black population had the highest rate of home-ownership of any black urban population in the country, and their unemployment rate was just 3.4 percent. It was not despair that fueled the riot. It was the riot which marked the beginning of the decline of Detroit to its current state of despair.
Following the riots, an oil crunch took its toll. The auto industry, plagued by Big Labor attacks since the 40s, responded to rising gas prices with a series of incredibly awful automobiles and incredibly bad concessions to the unions. After GM essentially launched the Japanese import market with horrendous cars like the Vega, the United Auto Workers actually managed to exact the infamous GM jobs bank, a program in which laid-off workers were paid nearly full salary and benefits to not work. Over the next few decades, the jobs bank cost GM just less than $1 billion per year.
Note from the Editor: Hyperinflation is becoming more visible every day—just notice the next time you shop for groceries. All signs say America’s economic recovery is expected to take a nose dive and before it gets any worse you should read The Uncensored Survivalist. This book contains sensible advice on how to avoid total financial devastation and how to survive on your own if necessary. Click here for your free copy.
While the city’s major employers desperately tried to keep their heads above water despite the unions’ attempts to drown them, the remaining denizens of Detroit decided to salt the fields they had so badly plowed under in 1967. Given the choice to elect redoubtable stewards of the public trust, the Motor City’s voters elected kleptocrats like Kwame Kilpatrick — twice.
Bad planning, bad production, bad employees, bad politicians and bad people took control of a city named Detroit. By the time they were through with it, Detroit was the city we see now: Democratted to death.

The Media Fail To Start A Race War
You have to wonder: Does the mainstream media really want blacks in this country to riot because a jury of his peers found George Zimmerman “not guilty” of the charges against him?
That’s certainly the impression I get from the coverage of the trial and its aftermath.
Correction: The incredibly biased and often incendiary reporting began long before the first day of the trial. It started, in fact, shortly after the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin on Feb. 26, 2012. And it skyrocketed when authorities in Sanford, Fla., said there wasn’t enough evidence to charge Zimmerman with murder.
That was all the professional race-baiters needed to launch a national crusade for “justice.” Virtually overnight, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, NAACP officials and numerous other crusaders had an issue that would get them in front of the cameras again. They grabbed their megaphones and put on their marching shoes. And the mainstream media promptly gave them all of the publicity they could want.

The pressure for the authorities to bring charges was impossible to resist. The Sanford police chief was fired for refusing to arrest Zimmerman. Angela Corey, the State Attorney in Florida, led a prosecution that was so biased and dishonest that Alan Dershowitz, the liberal Harvard Law professor, says she should be the one to be put on trial.
“I think there were violations of civil rights and civil liberties — by the prosecutor,” Dershowitz said. “The prosecutor sent this case to a judge and willfully, deliberately and, in my view, criminally withheld exculpatory evidence.”
The famous criminal-law expert added specifics: “They denied the judge the right to see pictures that showed Zimmerman with his nose broken and his head bashed in. The prosecution should be investigated for civil rights violations and civil liberty violations.”
Fat chance that will happen.
As just one example of how viciously the media distorted things before the jury rendered its verdict, consider Zimmerman’s telephone call to 911 on the night of the shooting. Here’s what the “Today” show played for its audience a month later: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”
Sure makes it sounds as though Zimmerman based his concern on Martin’s skin color, doesn’t it? That’s what the media wanted you to think. But as we subsequently learned, the “Today” editors deliberately omitted an important part of that telephone call. Here’s a transcript of the actual conversation:
Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”
Dispatcher: “OK, and this guy – is he black, white, or Hispanic?”
Zimmerman: “He looks black.”
You’ll be pleased to learn that Steve Capus, who at the time was president of NBC News, said that the edited phone call was most emphatically “not a deliberate act to misrepresent the phone call.” Sure thing, Steve. And thanks for assuring us that the people guilty of this flagrant distortion were “disciplined,” whatever that means.
As it happens, a lengthy investigation by the FBI could find absolutely no evidence that Zimmerman has ever expressed any racist sentiments. And you can bet the liberal media tried desperately to find some.
Zimmerman’s attorneys say that now that his trial is over, they plan to proceed with a defamation lawsuit against NBC News. I wish them well. In fact, I hope Zimmerman collects a ton of money. He’s going to need it, since it looks like he will be put on trial again.
That’s right. The NAACP is leading an effort to have Zimmerman face Federal charges of violating Martin’s civil rights. Some even want him charged with a hate crime. The NAACP has collected more than 450,000 signatures for a petition campaign with this appeal: “A jury has acquitted George Zimmerman, but we are not done demanding justice for Trayvon Martin. Sign our petition to the Department of Justice today.”
If the race-baiters have their way, Zimmerman will once more be on trial — this time in a Federal court. So we’ll once again hear the media go through distortions to make everything about race. That’s why we got such absurdities as the media description of him as “a white Hispanic.”
Meanwhile, the Orlando Sentinel reported that the Justice Department is asking for the public to assist in its investigation: “The U.S. Department of Justice on Monday afternoon appealed to civil rights groups and community leaders, nationally and in Sanford, for help investigating whether a federal criminal case might be brought against George Zimmerman for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, one advocate said.”

Apparently, if you know anything that could lead the Feds to press charges, they want you to send them an email about it. Can you imagine the kind of “tips” they’re going to receive? And probably not just about Zimmerman. I’ll bet they receive all sorts of rumors and accusations about his defense attorneys. Heck, they’ll probably even get a ton of scuttlebutt about some of the jurors.
Much was made of the fact that, of the six women on the jury that acquitted Zimmerman, not one of them was black. There were five whites and one Hispanic. But here’s something you may not have known: There was a black male in the jury pool, but he was rejected by the prosecution. Why? Because he admitted that he watched FOX News. That was all the prosecution needed to hear.
According to a recent Rasmussen poll, more blacks think other blacks are racists than whites. Yes, you read that correctly. The Rasmussen pollsters say that 31 percent of blacks believe most blacks are racist, while only 24 percent of blacks believe that most whites are. Interesting, isn’t it?
Thankfully, some black leaders are speaking out in opposition to more criminal prosecution of Zimmerman. Alveda King, the niece of civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr., had this to say about the efforts of the NAACP and other organizations: “We need to wonder why they’re doing that, what kind of checks and money they’re getting behind the scenes to stir us up into racial anarchy. We should be speaking non-violence, justice, peace and love as Trayvon’s parents are doing, by the way. So we need to ask why they’re race baiting, because they are.”
After what was probably the most highly publicized trial of this century, Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges against him. That’s not good enough for Sharpton and the other professional race baiters. Nor is it good enough for the liberal-dominated media. They love to feature any criticism of this country, no matter how distorted or exaggerated.
Thankfully, so far at least, all we’ve seen are what the media refer to as “mostly peaceful” demonstrations against the verdict. It could have been a lot worse. And if the race baiters get their way and Zimmerman goes on trial again, I’m afraid it will be.
Until next time, keep some powder dry.

‘Voting The Bums Out’ A Failed Strategy

‘Voting The Bums Out’ A Failed Strategy
I’ve got some news for you.
There is absolutely nothing from the Founding Fathers — and I mean nothing — in which they said your No. 1 course of action in response to massive, repeated Constitutional violations should be to “vote the bums out.”
They never said that. Nowhere. Ever.
For some reason, though, opponents of endless Federal power seem to pull the “vote the bums out” card first. And a vast majority of them seem to have just that one card — and no others.
Wherever I speak around the country, voting the bums out is the first thing people tell me needs to be done to fix problems created by the Federal government. People everywhere back this up with their money. The 2012 elections saw about $6 billion spent.
Six billion dollars. Anyone who complains about how Congress spends money should be appalled at this utter waste of resources.
When Congress spends hundreds of dollars on a toilet seat, at least they get something to sit on.

When you spend your hard-earned money on Federal candidates who are going to reduce the size and scope of the Federal government, you get nothing. Zilch.
“Government today is bigger and more unConstitutional than it was before the last election.”
If you could travel through time, you could make that statement in any of the past 100 years and you’d almost never be wrong.
“Voting the bums out” has proven to be a complete and utter failure as a strategy.

Neighborhood Dining

Some people will tell you that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
While I doubt that people spending their hard-earned money on this proven failure are insane, there’s certainly something to be said here.
Let’s say you have a new restaurant open in your neighborhood. You give it a try; they treat you rudely and don’t even give you what you ordered. They serve you something completely different and refuse to fix it. After talking with your neighbors, you learn that every one of them had the same experience there.
You probably wouldn’t give them your money again, would you?
Well, maybe the owners want to give it another try. They hire a new manager, walk around the neighborhood, door-to-door, apologizing for the horrible treatment and making great promises about service, better prices and higher quality.
OK, you think, time to give these people another chance; they’re human, after all.
The second time you go there, it’s worse.
Again, they bring you food you never ordered and refuse to correct the mistake. They spill food on your clothes and then force you to pay them to clean it. And after you leave, they double-charge your credit card, too.
I can guarantee that even if you got to the second try, there would never be a third.

Congressional Appetite

But for some odd reason, even though each and every one of us deals with this kind of treatment (well, much worse, actually) from the Federal government, there’s more than a second try or even a third. Way more.
After watching government grow every year for our entire life, millions of us pour our hearts, souls and money into the next person who promises to fix things.
These bums, and the new bums who replace them once in a while, have an insatiable appetite for money and power. They often sound like underdogs, make wonderful promises about all the good they’ll do, and they never have enough of your money.
Occasionally, you get someone who’s the real deal. He is an honest person. He will work hard to do the right thing. And he will do everything he can to move the Federal government closer to the Constitution.
Even when a few good people get elected, they fail.
Here’s the hard truth. It doesn’t matter what political party is in power in Washington, D.C., or what person is in charge in the White House; Federal power always grows and your liberty is always less. This is how things have gone for at least 100 years.

The Recipe

Even though government schools will never teach you how to limit government power, the Founders did, in fact, offer solutions.
No, there’s no silver bullet. No one’s riding in on a white horse to save you in the way people view Presidential candidates. And, no, those unaccountable, politically connected lawyers who make up the Supreme Court aren’t going to fix things either. They work for the organization that’s violating your rights more than any in the world: the Federal government. They’re part of the problem, too.
James Madison, generally regarded as the “father of the Constitution,” was pretty direct about what should be done. He wrote the following in Federalist No. 46:
Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.
 James Madison said that when the Federal government passes an unConstitutional measure — or even if it passes something that’s totally Constitutional, but still unpopular — there are ways to successfully resist it.
Notice that Madison didn’t mention a single thing about elections or voting bums out.
He did, however, point to methods which are “powerful and at hand.” Two prominent examples that you should be doing today:
“Refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union.”
Use “legislative devices” to create “very serious impediments.”
Madison also told us that if several adjoining States would do the same, it would make things extremely difficult for the Feds to deal with.
Judge Andrew Napolitano has said virtually the same recently, that a State refusing to comply would make Federal laws “nearly impossible to enforce.”
I happen to agree.

What Now?

We’ve all got extremely limited time, resources and money. It’s important to try to have the biggest bang for the buck when it comes to the Constitution and your liberty.
Let’s say, for example, you have one hour a week to dedicate to an effort and $100 a year to donate.
If you’re knocking on doors trying to help someone win a congressional primary race, or if you’ve donated your $100 to a 2016 Presidential candidate, you’ve already lost.
Instead, you could dedicate one hour per week to following Madison’s advice. You could work to advance legislation in your State, county, city or town that would, by law, require a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” on a specific issue, as Madison advised.
Stop pouring your time and money into the siren song of Federal election campaigns. Voting the bums out is a failed strategy.
If your goal is the Constitution, it’s high time that you started following Madison’s advice on how to get there.
Your country needs you. Your community needs you. Your family needs you. Liberty needs you. The time to act is now.

A Nation Of Ignoramuses

A Nation Of Ignoramuses
The United States is devolving into a Nation of ignoramuses, its citizens increasingly ignorant of U.S. and world history and particularly uninformed regarding the Nation’s founding documents and what led to the creation of their Nation.
The government’s public (non)education system, the agenda-driven mainstream media propaganda system, Hollywood’s disinformation, campaigns promoting bread and circuses and the infusion of millions of aliens into the country are doing the job the collectivist progressive elites envisioned. The goal is to manufacture a populace too ignorant of their rights and too preoccupied to fathom even most repressive tyranny.
A recent national poll by the Newseum Institute’s First Amendment Center revealed that almost half (47 percent) of 18- to 30-year-olds agree with the statement that the 1st Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees.
The poll sampled 1,006 American adults from the 48 contiguous States. Its findings are astonishing and maddening.

The 1st Amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
When asked to name the five specific freedoms in the 1st Amendment, 36 percent of those polled were unable to name any. Freedom of speech was named by 59 percent, followed by freedom of religion (24 percent), freedom of the press (14 percent), right to assemble (11 percent) and right to petition government (4 percent).
The survey found that that while the percentage of Americans who can name the five 1st Amendment rights has generally increased since the organization began annual polling in 1997, the overall awareness of the 1st Amendment has decreased.
Among all those surveyed, 64 percent say the 1st Amendment does not go too far. But 52 percent of blacks and 50 percent of Hispanics say the amendment does go too far. That number drops to 29 percent of the white population.
The poll was conducted in May as stories about the government’s spying on journalists with The Associated Press and FOX News were coming out. It showed that Americans were split over whether reporters should reveal their sources if doing so made the country safer. Fifty-one percent opposed government requiring journalists to reveal their sources, while 44 percent supported it. That number is up from 37 percent in 2008.

And although only slightly more than half opposed journalists being forced to reveal their sources, 80 percent expected the news media to act as a government watchdog. How journalists are supposed to do that if they can’t keep their sources confidential was not asked. The question would probably not have been understood by the 49 percent.
The (non)education system and schools — predominantly run and staffed by socialists, progressives, collectivists and Marxists — omit teaching on the Nation’s origins and vilify the Founders and their struggle — demonizing the great explorers and the likes of Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry while glorifying Marxist criminals like Che Guevera.
Regimes — Presidential, Congressional and judicial — past and present have trampled the Bill of Rights almost out of existence. The 1st Amendment is no exception.
Christians are a main target of the statist elected class, media punditry and Hollywood, all of which are working overtime to destroy the value system and morality that has existed in this country since its inception.
The Barack Obama regime has targeted Christian-owned businesses for special persecution by requiring, through the unConstitutional Obamacare deathcare system, the inclusion of birth control and abortion services in their employee healthcare plans in direct contravention of their religious beliefs against them.
It has foisted upon the country, through court sanction, abetted by an ongoing propaganda campaign and against the wishes of the majority, homosexual marriage: a union that is anathema to Christian teachings.
Freedom of speech, assembly and redress are under attack in myriad ways. The Department of Justice’s targeting of reporters, the regime’s persecution of whistle-blowers, attempts by the government to gain control of the Internet, the National Defense Authorization Act’s Section 1021, the creation of “thought crimes” through hate crime laws and the massive Orwellian surveillance state all bespeak of a regime that is becoming increasingly fearful, lacking in legitimacy and totalitarian.

In ways subtle and overt, Hollywood is destroying the moral fabric of society and the masses lap it up. Hollywood portrays the family matrix as dysfunctional, glorifies perversion and strips males of all dignity, portraying them as idiotic buffoons, lazy, incompetent and in constant pursuit of base animalistic pleasures.
Hollywood demonstrates a misogynistic attitude toward women. They are sexualized, often scantily clad and presented as “eye candy” and sexual objects; and if their bodies and features aren’t perfect, their characters are subject to ridicule and/or presented as inviting abuse or being either villainous or simpleton. A UNESCO report on the portrayal of women in the media describes the litany of common images of women: “the glamorous sex kitten, the sainted mother, the devious witch, the hardfaced (sic) corporate and political climber.”
The regime, aided and abetted by the mainstream media, constantly inflames passions, creates conflict and feeds the public distractions and bread and circus that serves to obfuscate and cover up its crimes.
Meanwhile, the Nation and the republican system are in a state of collapse — that collapse being staved off temporarily through welfare, never-ending unemployment benefits, food stamps, free telephones and other free “stuff” and money printing. The dumbed-down public remains unaware that the regime and its elite puppet masters are stealing its wealth and enslaving it, binding the chains tighter by the day.
The 2nd Amendment is under constant assault. Even though it is the Amendment by which all others can be preserved, the public is increasingly buying into the lie that guns are objects to be scorned as if they’re scorpions that sting on their own. The media and the Obama Administration overhyped the George Zimmerman trial in an agenda-driven effort to stir racial conflict and create a flashpoint of violence over which it can push for stricter gun laws or, worse, martial law.

The 4th Amendment is long gone, crushed under the so-called USA Patriot Act, NDAA, the ever-expanding Department of Homeland (in)Security and the massive National Stasi Agency spying apparatus.
Fifth Amendment rights are being eroded by the courts and the regime daily. Now Americans can be targeted for drone attacks and murdered without due process. More and more the courts are allowing the law enforcement apparatus to use all your words against you so that it’s no longer safe to even have a conversation with a police officer. And, as the ongoing DOJ persecution of Zimmerman shows, double jeopardy provisions are non-existent.
These and other rights are pushed aside and thrown into history’s trash heap. They’ve disappeared with hardly a whimper.
Important issues like the criminal “Gang of Eight’s” amnesty bill, Internal Revenue Service targeting, Benghazi terror attacks, Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal, long-term high unemployment, payoffs to and thefts by the banksters and Wall Street, ongoing money debasement and the regime’s illegitimacy are ignored while the masses occupy themselves with prescription drugs, wall-to-wall coverage of celebrity escapades, sporting events and falsely created racial issues.

More racial violence erupts in Greensboro

(Editor’s note: Colin Flaherty has done more reporting than any other journalist on what appears to be a nationwide trend of skyrocketing black-on-white crime, violence and abuse. WND features these reports to counterbalance the virtual blackout by the rest of the media due to their concerns that reporting such incidents would be inflammatory or even racist. WND considers it racist not to report racial abuse solely because of the skin color of the perpetrators or victims.) Videos linked or embedded may contain foul language and violence. 

by: Colin Flaherty 

I get a lot of tips on black mob violence from WND readers around the country. Some I know about. Some I do not. Some are true. Some are not.
Many are from cops. Lots and lots of cops. Here’s a message this morning from a Texas cop, a 20-year veteran and a regular correspondent on the topic of black mob violence:
“This is incredible, the rate at which things are escalating. On the streets, out here, the attitude is one of entitlement which i haven’t seen.”
I get that from cops all over the country. Even Greensboro, N.C.
This morning, my email and twitter streams were full of information about Greensboro. The conversations kind of went like this:
“Did you hear about the black mob violence in Greensboro?” asked one reader.
“You mean the Fourth of July where hundreds of black people filled the downtown both before and after the fireworks? Fighting. Destroying property. Defying police. Violating curfew? Where it got so bad they had to use pepper spray?”

“No, not that one.”
“Oh you mean the run up to the Fourth of July?” I asked. “When in the weeks prior to fireworks they had several incidents including one where 400 black people were in the streets fighting. On video. Destroying property. Defying police. Where it got so bad they had to use pepper spray and stun guns?”
“No, not that one either.”
Those were so bad the city council met in an emergency meeting the day before the Fourth of July to impose a curfew in the downtown. Maybe the WND readers were referring to last year.
“Are you talking about the Fourth of July last year?” I asked. “Where 1,000 black people filled the downtown after the fireworks. Fighting. Destroying property. Assaulting people. Defying police. Where it got so bad they had to use pepper spray and stun guns?”
“No, not that either.”
I still had a lot of material to work with. Much of it from “White Girl Bleed a Lot: The return of racial violence and how the media ignore it.” (New and improved edition soon out on WND Books.)
I use Greensboro as an example of a small, nice place with lots of black mob violence that few people know about. I pressed on:

“You mean before that, where a local TV station reported that “every weekend” in June leading up the Fourth of July last year featured large-scale black mob violence downtown? Fighting. Destroying property. Assaulting people. Defying police. Where it got so bad they had to use pepper spray and stun guns?”
“No. Not those either.”
I wasn’t going to ask about the Greensboro concerts, parties and other public events that also feature large scale black mob violence. So much so that city council considered banning them.
But the city council did not. Even the 11 p.m. curfew the city council imposed in a near panic for this year’s Fourth of July almost did not make it. At least one city council member said the curfew was not fair because it targeted black people.
That council member ended up supporting the curfew. But no one knows what would have happened had she decided to make a bigger deal out of it. But she assured them she would not be playing “the race card.”
Only one speaker belled the cat and identified the rioters as “black kids.” The other council members said the large scale violence was not really the fault of the people involved anyway. They placed the blame variously on jobs, housing, poverty, lack of recreation, lousy parents. All the usual.

They did have a midnight basketball program, several council members said. And that seemed to be working just fine. But their idea to hold a free movie downtown, and invite all the disaffected youths, as they did a month ago?
Let’s just say they won’t be doing that again.
Finally I Googled it and looked it up on Twitter: “Large fight Greensboro.”
There it was. Thursday night. More than 200 black people at a party. Fighting. Destroying property. Firing guns. Assaulting people. Fighting cops.
All about half a mile outside of the downtown curfew zone. Six people were arrested.
Some in Greensboro took to the message boards to register their disgust with the lawlessness and anarchy that flourishes in their town on a regular basis.
“Keep up and Greensboro will be just another Detroit,” said one poster called OneLonesomeDove at the WXII TV news site.
“Was this black mob violence?” asked another. “If it was, you need to say so, and not be afraid of the repercussions.”
It was, said several people both in an out of the Greensboro police department. Whatever the repercussions may be of talking about black mob violence , Greensboro is seeing what happens when people do not talk about it.

None of the comments was posted at the local daily paper, the News & Record.
“Comments have been disabled,” is all the paper had to say about that.

See the Big List of black mob violence.

World's 'hottest' porn star gives life to God

by: Chelsea Schilling 

Once named by Maxim as one of the hottest porn stars in the world, Jenna Presley performed in more than 275 pornographic films, stripped for money, sold her body in prostitution, abused drugs and even tried to kill herself – but now the young brunette stunner says she has found her true calling in life.
“Thank you, Jesus! I found Him, I’m home!” she declared, announcing that she has become a born-again Christian.
Presley, 26, whose real name is Brittni Ruiz, said, “It’s been a long seven-year journey of porn, prostitution, stripping, drugs, alcohol and several failed suicide attempts.”
Ruiz, who struggled with anorexia in high school, was reportedly raped when she was 14 years old.
Where is our nation going wrong? Americans’ traditional sexual morality has been violently subverted. In her hit book, “Sexual Sabotage,” Dr. Judith Reisman explains why we can and must repudiate soul-and-body-destroying sexual anarchy.
At the young age of 15, she began a career as a topless dancer in Mexico.

By 18, she performed in X-rated hardcore movies, shooting two and three sex scenes a day for $900 each while she was in college.  She won numerous top industry awards for her work.
In an interview with Adult FYI, Ruiz said producers told her she was beautiful.
Upon filming her first sex scene, she recalled, “I felt so loved that day because I was put in hair and makeup. I was told I was beautiful. I was going to be a star.”
She said they made her work relentlessly because she had a very young look. The producers dressed her in children’s clothing and pigtails.
“I already looked like I was 12,” she recalled, adding, “It’s disgusting how they can portray you as a little girl. It’s complete perversion.”
But the industry began to have a devastating impact on her.
“It left me feeling drained,” she said. “I was so robotic, I was like a rubber Barbie doll. I had no emotions. … I was no longer Brittni. I became Jenna Presley. I had an alter ego.”

So Ruiz turned to drugs to numb her pain.
Then she attended a church in San Diego and met a man. They began dating, but he was beaten to death in front of her at a Las Panchos restaurant by members of a motor cycle gang.
“He got murdered, stabbed in front of me,” she said.
The trauma of the incident derailed her faith, and Ruiz began abusing drugs again and tried to kill herself.
Then XXX Church, an outreach ministry that focuses on helping people leave the porn industry and fight porn addictions, found Ruiz at a porn convention. The XXX Church distributed hundreds of Bibles and declared, “Jesus loves porn stars.”

Ruiz filmed her last sex scene in November 2012. She gave her life to God this year and left the industry. She now works for a limousine company.
“It was seven long years,” she told Adult FYI. “I hated what I was doing, but I wondered what I would do next.”
Looking back, Ruiz recalled, “I never found love in my life and was looking for it in all the wrong places. … I have finally encountered the unconditional love of God, and I will never go back.” 

The following is Ruiz’ story in her own words: See video:

Egypt's Mursi likely to go to same prison as Mubarak-minister

File photo of a portrait of deposed Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi seen on barbed wire outside the Republican Guard headquarters in Cairo

CAIRO (Reuters) - Egypt's deposed Islamist President Mohamed Mursi, who has been accused of murder and other crimes, is likely to be transferred to the same Cairo prison where former leader Hosni Mubarak is now held, the interior minister said on Saturday.
Mohamed Ibrahim also said pro-Mursi sit-ins would "God willing, soon ... be dealt with" based on a decision by the prosecutor, who has been examining legal complaints by citizens about the protests that have blocked major Cairo thoroughfares.
"God willing, it will be broken up in a way that does not cause losses," he said referring to sit-ins that have lasted about a month. "But, God permitting, it must end. We hope that they come to their senses ... and join their political process."

"With regards to the timing ... to disperse the protesters, there is complete coordination between us and the armed forces," the minister told a news conference.
"There are still meetings going on to set the appropriate time to implement that plan according to the complaints submitted to the prosecutor on transgressions of the law by the protesters."
The minister, who accused the pro-Mursi camp of exaggerating the numbers killed in clashes, said security forces used teargas to disperse demonstrators on a bridge because of concerns they could cause the bridge to collapse by lighting vehicle tires.
But he said the security forces had not used any live ammunition, but had instead suffered buckshot wounds and injuries from live rounds fired by protesters.
A Reuters witness, at a field hospital run by Mursi supporters, saw several demonstrators wounded by buckshot and with injuries medics said were caused by bullets.

The minister also said a decision on where to hold Mursi, whose current location has not been announced, would be up to the investigating judge. When pressed by journalists about where Mursi would be taken, he said "mostly likely to Torah" prison.
Torah, on the edge of Cairo, is the jail where Mubarak, his sons and members of the former president's cabinet have been held after they were detained in the wake of the uprising that erupted in January 2011.
(Reporting by Tom Perry and Maggie Fick; Writing by Edmund Blair; Editing by Michael Georgy)

Here's How The 'Star Wars' 'Return Of The Jedi' Cast Looks Today

Ed: On the light side to take a lil break from pollitickin'

The original "Star Wars" cast from "Return of the Jedi" gathered 30 years after the film hit theaters in 1983.
"Star Wars Episode VII" is currently set for a 2015 release.
Lucas all but confirmed many of the original cast will be returning to the film in a Bloomberg Businessweek article back in March.
Actors Jeremy Bulloch (Boba Fett), Carrie Fisher (Princess Leia), Peter Mayhew (Chewbacca), Warwick Davis (Wicket the Ewok), Ian McDiarmid (Emperor Palpatine), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), and Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker) all posed together Thursday at annual fan event Star Wars Celebration in Essen, Germany.
return of the jedi cast
Missing from the photo were Harrison Ford (Han Solo) and Billy Dee Williams (Lando Calrissian). 
AP Photo
... and Fisher and Hamill. 
carrie fisher mark hamill star wars

Democrats to aid Republicans on Missouri gun bill

FILE - In this Jan. 28, 2013 file photo, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon delivers the annual State of the State address to a joint session of the House and Senate in Jefferson City, Mo. With the help of a few Democrats, Missouri's Republican-led Legislature appears to be positioned to override Nixon's veto of a high-profile bill that seeks to nullify federal gun-control laws in the state and make criminals out of federal agents who attempt to enforce them. (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson, File)

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — With the help of a few Democrats, Missouri's Republican-led Legislature appears to be positioned to override Gov. Jay Nixon's veto of a high-profile bill that seeks to nullify federal gun-control laws in the state and make criminals out of federal agents who attempt to enforce them.
Several of Nixon's fellow Democrats confirmed to The Associated Press that they would vote to override his veto when lawmakers convene in September, even while agreeing with the governor that the bill couldn't survive a court challenge. Many of them noted that in some parts of Missouri, a "no" vote on gun legislation could be career ending.

"We love our guns and we love hunting. It's not worth the fight for me to vote against it," said Rep. T.J. McKenna, D-Festus. But, he added, "the bill is completely unconstitutional, so the courts are going to have to throw it out."
The legislation would make it a misdemeanor for federal agents to attempt to enforce any federal gun regulations that "infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms." The same criminal charges would apply to journalists who publish any identifying information about gun owners. The charge would be punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.
Nixon said the bill infringes on the U.S. Constitution by giving precedence to state law over federal laws and by limiting the First Amendment rights of media.
The legislation is one of the boldest measures yet in a recent national trend in which states are attempting to nullify federal laws. A recent Associated Press analysis found that about four-fifths of the states have enacted local laws that directly reject or ignore federal laws on gun control, marijuana use, health insurance requirements and identification standards for driver's licenses. Relatively few of those go so far as to threaten criminal charges against federal authorities.

McKenna was among 11 House Democrats who joined Republicans to pass the Missouri gun legislation in May, by a 116-38 vote. The bill cleared the Senate 26-6, with two Democrats supporting it. A veto override needs a two-thirds majority in both chambers, or 109 votes in the House and 23 in the Senate.
Republicans hold 24 Senate seats. Although Republicans currently hold 109 House seats, they're down at least one of their own. Rep. Jay Barnes was the only Republican to vote against the original bill and said he opposes a veto override.
"Our Constitution is not a Chinese buffet, which we like and do not like," the Jefferson City attorney told the AP. "The First Amendment is part of the Constitution that we must uphold. ... (And) the supremacy clause means that states cannot criminalize the activities of agents of the federal government."
If the rest of the Republicans stick together, and none are absent, that means they will need at least one Democratic vote to override the veto.
But so far, at least three House Democrats — McKenna, Keith English of Florissant and Ben Harris of Hillsboro — said they would support a veto override, and Democratic Rep. Jeff Roorda of Barnhart said he was leaning toward it.

"Being a rural-area Democrat, if you don't vote for any gun bill, it will kill you," Harris said. "That's what the Republicans want you to do is vote against it, because if you vote against it, they'll send one mailer every week just blasting you about guns, and you'll lose" re-election.
Four other Democrats who voted for the bill told the AP they were now undecided. At least one of the original Democratic "yes" votes — Rep. Steve Hodges, of East Prairie — said he would switch to a "no."
Pro-gun legislation typically has received bipartisan support in Missouri. In 2003, the Republican-led Legislature overrode Democratic Gov. Bob Holden's veto of legislation legalizing concealed guns with the help of more than two dozen Democrats. That same year, Democrats helped Republicans to override another Holden veto of a bill limiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
This year's vetoed gun bill is entitled the "Second Amendment Preservation Act" — a label that some Democrats said makes it politically risky to oppose.
Democratic Rep. Ed Schieffer, who proclaims himself "100 percent pro-gun," said he voted for the bill in May with an eye toward a potential 2014 state Senate campaign against Republican Rep. Jeanie Riddle, of Mokane, who also supported the bill. Schieffer, of Troy, said he is undecided whether to support a veto override.

"I personally believe that any higher court will probably rule this particular gun law unconstitutional — on that, I probably agree that the governor's right," Schieffer said. "But I may end up still voting for the gun bill, because I don't want to be on record for not supporting guns."

Obama would like to inform you Ho Chi Minh was totally inspired by Thomas Jefferson

Seriously. Dude. As with the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups, it is not the fault of conservatives when this president and his administration manage to live down to the very lowest expectations you can find on an ideological message board. When it sounds like you’re copying and pasting your remarks from an all-caps parody of you on a site with a clip art screaming eagle and waving flag, you have only yourself to blame.
“…we discussed the fact that Ho Chi Minh was actually inspired by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of Thomas Jefferson.”

– President Obama talking to reporters alongside Vietnamese President Truong Tan Sang.
While Sterling Beard notes that this may be “factually true,” it is, at the very least, morally and politically problematic to throw Thomas Jefferson out as an “inspiration” to a man whose very name is shorthand for the slaughter of millions.

Continue Reading on

Obama Considering Government Shut-Down

The Washington Post reports that some Obama administration officials are pushing for a confrontational budget strategy that would likely result in a government shut-down. In one scenario, the president would refuse to sign any funding measure that didn’t roll back the sequester.

No doubt the administration officials advocating such a course are remembering the heady days of the Clinton administration, when the GOP’s decision to shut down the government effectively resulted in their losing control of the narrative that had swept them to power.


Continue Reading on

Tunisia killing could spell end to Islamist govt

CAPTION CORRECTS THE SPELLING OF MOHAMMED Supporters of the Islamist Ennahda movement march in the streets of Tunis during a demonstration to condemn the assassination of politician Mohammed Brahmi in Tunisia, Friday, July 26, 2013. Mohammed Brahmi was shot 14 times in front of his home within sight of his family on Thursday, plunging the country into a political crisis and unleashing demonstrations around the country blaming the government for the assassination. (AP Photo/Amine Landoulsi)

TUNIS, Tunisia (AP) — The assassination of a second opposition politician in six months has piled the pressure on Tunisia's troubled Islamist-led coalition government, which came to power in the wake of the Arab Spring but is struggling to right the economy and rein in extremists.
With the country brought to a virtual standstill by a general strike and the revelation that the same gun was apparently used by an al-Qaida-linked Islamist extremist cell in the two assassinations, calls grew Friday for the 18-month-old transitional government to stand down.
On Friday six opposition parties holding 42 seats announced their withdrawal from the 217-seat national assembly and called for the government, elected in the aftermath of the overthrow of the country's long-time dictator, to be replaced by a national unity government tasked with finishing off the constitution and paving the way for fresh elections.

"We are withdrawing from the constituent assembly, which has lost its credibility, and are calling for the dissolution of a government that has failed, and tomorrow we will engage in an open sit-in in front of the assembly until it is dissolved," the parties announced in a statement issued during a late-night press conference.
Tunisia is considered the birthplace of the Arab Spring. Its revolution inspired pro-democracy uprisings across the Middle East and set an example for political cooperation when a coalition was formed between the Islamist Ennahda Party and two secular parties.
However, a troubled economy, rising Islamist extremists and the two political slayings have tarnished the government and fueled opposition calls for its dissolution.
"The assassination of Mohammed Brahmi is a failure of the government and a failure of its security policy," said political analyst Alaya Allani. "I think most of the political elite feel it is urgent after the assassination to dissolve the current government and replace it with a non-partisan, competent one."

The government's failure was driven home, said Allani, when the Interior Minister revealed in a press conference that not only was the same radical Islamist group behind the two assassinations, but that the same gun was used.
Lotfi Ben Jeddou said the gun used to shoot leftist politician Brahmi 14 times in front of his home was the same 9mm semi-automatic pistol that killed opposition politician Chokri Belaid back in February.
Brahmi's assailant was Boubakr Hakim, a 30-year-old weapons smuggler with Islamist sympathies who was also part of the al-Qaida-linked cell that assassinated Belaid, according to Ben Jeddou.
Critics of the government have wondered why after five months Belaid's killers had still not been brought to justice and worse that the assassinations were continuing.
The opposition has accused Ennahda of being overly tolerant of a rising radical Islamist trend in the country that has shown violent tendencies in its efforts to instill greater piety in what has long been known as one of the most secular countries in the Arab world.
The killing of Brahmi of the leftist Popular Current comes at a particularly sensitive time as Tunisia's drawn out transition is finally reaching its end with the debate on the constitution and amid rising hopes that fresh elections will be held by the end of the year.

To pass the constitution, which is still being hotly debated in the assembly, a two-thirds majority is required.
"It's high time to take into account what the population and different opposition groups are saying about how this government has failed to protect Tunisians," said Kamel Labidi, an analyst and free speech activist who expressed worry that the Islamists might not compromise. "I am afraid the hardliners in the Islamist movement are not inclined generally to work with anyone to lead the country toward democracy."
After the assassination of Belaid, anti-government protests erupted and Hamadi Jebali, the prime minister at the time suggested the formation of a government of technocrats. His own party rejected his offer and Jebali resigned.
In the wake of the latest assassination, Ennahda has remained firm once again in its insistence on remaining in power until the transition is completed and new elections held.
Ajmi Lourimi, a member of the Ennahda executive bureau, criticized the opposition for trying to use the crisis for its own ends.

"The demands of the opposition are not realistic or responsible ... they want to throw the country into a deeper crisis and take it into the unknown with disastrous consequences," he told The Associated Press. "The only solution is dialogue and consensus among all the parties and find compromises on our differences and finish the transition period with elections as soon as possible."
The opposition, as well as the main labor union that called the general strike, have shown little interest in dialogue. Among Friday's disruptions, flights and public transportation were cancelled.
Instead several groups and political parties announced the formation of a National Salvation Front to hold protests until the resignation of the government.
The number of people protesting in central Tunis and in front of the assembly was modest given the summer heat and the holy fasting month of Ramadan.
However, Brahmi's funeral on Saturday is expected to attract thousands.
A pro-government demonstration briefly marched down central Tunis' Bourguiba Avenue, the main site of the protests that brought down dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in 2011. Echoing supporters of the Islamist government in Egypt that was overthrown by a coup earlier in July, the protesters hailed the "legitimacy" of the government in the aftermath of elections.
Unlike their counterparts in Egypt, however, Tunisia's Islamists have consistently shown a willingness to compromise with the country's powerful secular forces, including on key matters like keeping reference to Islamic law out of the constitution.

Political analyst Allani said in the wake of the latest assassination that Ennahda needs to make serious compromises in light of the fall of the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt.
"This time the facts have changed and the regional events oblige it to make concessions or lose its credibility and open the way for new tensions in society," he said.
Schemm reported from Rabat, Morocco.

Friday, July 26, 2013

Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slur...get a grip France ya be ass backwards !

oped: I'm sorry France but Bridget has more cajones' than the entire French Foreign Legion...what happened to y'all ya like being oppressed and want Sharia Law:...Here do a lil reading on Islam before you lose your country to the new Ottoman Empire:

Brigitte Bardot gestures as she speaks at the European Commission headquarters in Brussels, June 9, 2006. REUTERS/Francois Lenoir

Wake up Frenchies Bridget put y'all on the map for the 20th Century...this is how you pay her back?

(Reuters) - French former film star Brigitte Bardot went on trial on Tuesday for insulting Muslims, the fifth time she has faced the charge of "inciting racial hatred" over her controversial remarks about Islam and its followers.
Prosecutors asked that the Paris court hand the 73-year-old former sex symbol a two-month suspended prison sentence and fine her 15,000 euros ($23,760) for saying the Muslim community was "destroying our country and imposing its acts".
Since retiring from the film industry in the 1970s, Bardot has become a prominent animal rights activist but she has also courted controversy by denouncing Muslim traditions and immigration from predominantly Muslim countries.
She has been fined four times for inciting racial hatred since 1997, at first 1,500 euros and most recently 5,000.
Prosecutor Anne de Fontette told the court she was seeking a tougher sentence than usual, adding: "I am a little tired of prosecuting Mrs Bardot."
Bardot did not attend the trial because she said she was physically unable to. The verdict is expected in several weeks.

French anti-racist groups complained last year about comments Bardot made about the Muslim feast of Eid al-Adha in a letter to President Nicolas Sarkozy that was later published by her foundation.
Muslims traditionally mark Eid al-Adha by slaughtering a sheep or another animal to commemorate the prophet Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son on God's orders.
France is home to 5 million Muslims, Europe's largest Muslim community, making up 8 percent of France's population.
"I am fed up with being under the thumb of this population which is destroying us, destroying our country and imposing its acts," the star of 'And God created woman' and 'Contempt' said.
Bardot has previously said France is being invaded by sheep-slaughtering Muslims and published a book attacking gays, immigrants and the unemployed, in which she also lamented the "Islamisation of France".
(Reporting by Thierry Leveque; writing by Francois Murphy, editing by Mary Gabriel)

Huma Has Lost Her Halo


Shoebat tells us why Huma Abedin, daughter of a Muslim Brotherhood ... 

McCain and Boehner were wrong...Michele Bachmann was right!


When Michele Bachmann picked on Huma Abedin a year ago — claiming she had some convoluted connection to the Muslim Brotherhood — there was a rush to defend the longtime Hillary Clinton aide. The Minnesota congresswoman quickly got a scolding from House Speaker John Boehner, Sen. John McCain, House Intelligence Committee chair Mile Rogers. But now that her husband, Anthony Weiner, is running for New York City mayor, the attacks on Abedin aren't so ridiculous, and Abedin herself is not quite so untouchable. Sen. Chuck Grassley is continuing his investigation into Abedin's unusual arrangement from June 2012 to February 2013 to work part-time as a consultant to the State Department while working as a consultant to Teneo Holdings, a New York-based strategic advisory group, the New York Daily News' Dan Friedman reports. 

RELATED: Anthony Weiner May Think He's Closer Friends with the Clintons Than They Do
Grassley claims Abedin is stonewalling his investigation into whether she used her government connections to give information to Teneo clients. Abedin didn't respond to Grassley's June letter until July 5, when the Daily News reported her silence. "I certainly never 'gathered information from government sources for the purpose of informing investment decisions of Teneo's clients,' as the Senate letter suggests," Abedin wrote. Grassley responds that "The State Department and Ms. Abedin haven't provided a single document that I requested." He says he'll keep pursuing his probe.
RELATED: What Did Huma Abedin Really Learn from Hillary Clinton?
And while there has been much praise of Abedin's handling of her first press conference this week, after it was reported that Weiner sent crotch pictures to other women more than a year after he resigned from Congress, she doesn't quite have the halo she once did. Slate's Dave Weigel points out that six years of news coverage of Abedin has remarkably focused on rave reviews of her physical appearance. ("Her appearance is just like, ‘Hoh my God!’ She takes your breath away," James Carville said. "[T]he women in our office definitely watch what Huma wears," Philippe Reines, who later worked as Clinton's spokesman, said.) The two main non-fashion things she's known for — standing by her husband and cashing in on Washington connections — are pretty "ordinary," Weigel says.

RELATED: Huma Abedin Will Not Have Trouble Finding Her Next Job
It's in the latter category that Abedin still shines. As The Washington Post reported on Thursday, friends of Bill and Hillary Clinton generally felt that "if you wanted to stay in Hillary’s good graces, you answer the call from Huma." So they donated to Weiner's mayoral campaign. And they still are! At least, as long as Abedin sticks by him, the New York Post reports:
“If you look at the contributors to Anthony around the country, they weren’t giving for Anthony — they were giving for Huma,” the source said.
“For many people, Huma is the gateway to Hillary. She’s one of the closest aides; she’s an adopted daughter. You think [power agent] Bob Barnett would give to Anthony? [Billionaire] Haim Saban wouldn’t give Anthony a second chance.”
But Clinton's biggest donors haven't bothered with Weiner, the Post says. That's because they ties to Hillary are already close enough.

College Republicans Deemed Security Threat at Obama Speech

by: Heather Ginsberg 
On Wednesday President Obama gave another speech on the economy at the University of Central Missouri. But apparently 10 college republicans wearing Tea Party t-shirts or other patriotic, Republican themed clothing were turned away from attending the event. The students who all held tickets to the event and had waited in line for 2 hours, were deemed a threat by security personnel at the front doors. Security made sure to explain it wasn’t about their politics, but about the President’s security. Really?!
The students had protested some of the President’s policies on campus earlier in the day, but had put away their signs in order to attend the event. Security turned them away at the front doors of the recreation facility and told them to stay hundreds of yards away from the area.

“It just didn’t make any sense,” Courtney Scott, the State Treasurer of the College Republicans told The Fix. “A lot of us traveled several hours to watch the speech. We were very disappointed not to be able to attend.”
According to The Fix:
The students’ protest earlier in the day was a peaceful one, consisting of holding political speech signs and talking to passersby throughout the morning, Scott said. They were asked to protest at the “public speech area” on campus, not anywhere near the rec center. They were not allowed within eyesight or earshot of people who were waiting in line.
The Mizzou Republicans were among about sixty protesters, half of whom were college students, who had voiced concern Wednesday over Obama’s economic policies in the wake of the country’s ongoing recession.
Some of the signs called for capitalism, others illustrated discontent with Missouri’s 16 percent unemployment rate among college student youth, and the increasing share of national debt students are saddled with year by year.
Hmmm. These kids really sound dangerous. Some 2,500 other people managed to get through security just fine, but the ones wearing Republican gear were turned away? Yeah, this seems a bit sketchy. Why is the President afraid of some college students disagreeing with his policy decisions? Maybe their impending graduation and the lack of jobs for them is making him worry about their approval?