Oklahoma suspects 'on same track' as Trayvon

By Scott Greer 

Bestselling author and renown investigative reporter Jack Cashill believes there are strong parallels between the Trayvon Martin case in Florida and the Duncan, Okla., case where black teens are accused of killing Australian baseball player Christopher Lane.
“The drugs, the racial animosity, the violence, the attachment to the hip hop culture – if Trayvon was the son of Barack Obama, they were his brothers,” Cashill commented to WND. “They were on the same track that Travyon was.”
He was referencing Obama’s comment that he made in the Trayvon Martin case, that pushed the conflict into the national political scene. Obama said, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”
Cashill has a new book coming out in just a few weeks, Sept. 1, in ebook form, and on Oct. 29 in hardback, “If I Had a Son: Race, Guns, and the Railroading of George Zimmerman,” that covers the Trayvon Martin case and how it escalated racial tensions across America.

Two teenage African-Americans are charged with the murder of Lane, and another teen faces charges for his involvement in the brutal slaying. Lane was shot in the back while jogging through his neighborhood and his death has prompted an international outcry.
Cashill believes that one of the accused killers, James Edwards, 15, was driven by racial animosity towards whites, as evidenced by tweets he sent out that included: “90% of white ppl are nasty. #HATE THEM” and “Ayeee I knocked out 5 woods since Zimmerman court! :)”
Woods is a derogatory term for white people.
“He’s clearly motivated by race, as have been hundreds of assaults by young black guys of white people across the country,” Cashill explained.
The recent spate of black mob violence that Cashill is referring to is documented in “White Girl Bleed A Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America and how the Media Ignore It,” written by WND contributor Colin Flaherty.
Cashill believes that the firestorm resulting from the verdict of the trial of George Zimmerman, who was acquitted by a jury, influenced the actions of these young men and caused them to murder an innocent white man.

“I think there is no doubt that the furor surrounding the Trayvon Martin case…and given a green light by the Justice Department and Barack Obama directly, has led to an increase in the attacks of blacks on whites across America,” Cashill stated.
He dismisses the notion that the tragedy was caused by the availability of guns in America, as certain Australian politicians and American media personalities have claimed. Instead it was caused, in Cashill’s opinion, by the national media that has promoted the idea that Zimmerman got away with murder.
“The national media, in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting, virtually licensed them to go out and do things like this. If we’re going to blame the Gabby Gifford shooting on Sarah Palin, which is totally bogus, here there is some real responsibility that has to be accepted by the national and the Obama administration, including Obama himself,” Cashill commented.
Cashill hopes that this tragedy breaks through the media silence on rising racial violence in America and that the general public will become more aware of this growing epidemic.

“This case has some potential to expose this ongoing black-on-white violence in the wake of the Trayvon Martin case because of the international element of it. Once the prime minister of Australia speaks out, the media are almost forced to say something on it,” Cashill elaborated.
In “If I Had A Son,” Cashill tells the inside story of how, as the result of a tragic encounter with troubled 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, the media turned Zimmerman into a white racist vigilante, “the most hated man in America.”
“If I Had A Son” tells how for the first time in the history of American jurisprudence, a state government, the U.S. Department of Justice, the White House, the major media, the entertainment industry and the vestiges of the civil rights movement conspired to put an innocent man in prison for the rest of his life.
All that stood between Zimmerman and lifetime internment were two folksy local lawyers, their aides, and some very dedicated citizen journalists, most notably an unpaid handful of truth seekers at the blogging collective known as the Conservative Treehouse.
“If I Had A Son” takes an inside look at this unprecedented battle formation.
It also tells the story of the six stalwart female jurors who ignored the enormous pressure mounting around them and preserved America’s judicial system.

In the wake of the verdict, skeptics in the Martin camp claimed that the state of Florida did not play to win. In the course of his research, Cashill came across some startling evidence which suggests that those skeptics may indeed be right.
“If I Had A Son” is the one and only comprehensive look at the most politically significant trial in decades. What George Zimmerman learned in the course of his ordeal is that although he supported Obama, and lobbied for Obama, and voted for Obama at least once, in the final analysis he did not look enough like Obama to be his son, and that made all the difference.
See Cashill’s comments on his investigation results:

See Videos : http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/oklahoma-suspects-on-same-track-as-trayvon/

Evidence U.S. bribed Muslim Brotherhood officials

 [Official Morsi government document: “Direction of Grants and Gifts for 2013,” submitted by Hamad bin Jasim bin Jabor Al Thani, former Qatari prime minister and foreign affairs minister]
by: Jerome R. Corsi 

A  question apparently being raised in next week’s trial in Cairo of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leaders facing criminal charges is this: Was the Obama administration paying bribes as large as $850,000 a year to the Morsi government that were distributed by top ministerial level officials to Muslim Brotherhood leaders, with the direct involvement of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo?

WND is in possession of an official document from inside the Morsi government that lends credibility to a report published in Arabic by an Egyptian newspaper in Cairo that lists the charges brought by the current military-controlled government against Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leaders.
As seen above, WND has obtained official records from the deposed Morsi government in Egypt, with signatures, documenting monthly “gifts” paid to Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt by the former prime minister and foreign minister of Qatar, Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor Al Thani.
The document was seized from Egyptian government offices in Cairo when the Morsi government was deposed by the military July 3.
As translated by former PLO member and native Arabic-speaker Walid Shoebat, the monthly “gifts” listed in the document amount to bribes paid by the Morsi government to leading Muslim Brotherhood members in Egypt, including an annual payment of $750,000 to $850,000 in U.S. dollars.

Shoebat explained to WND the names listed on the Egyptian government document correspond to information the Egyptian newspaper Almesryoon has just published in Egypt reporting that the Cairo district attorney’s office has begun investigating alleged bribes the U.S. has paid through its embassy in Cairo to the Muslim Brotherhood.
According to the newspaper: “A judicial source stated that the Attorney General Hisham Barakat received during the past few days a number of filed complaints accusing the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood and leaders of the centrist party of receiving bribes thinly disguised as ‘gifts’ paid through the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.”
The sources of the complaint stated that among those receiving bribes paid in U.S. dollars from the U.S. include:

• Mohamed Badie, general guide of the Muslim Brotherhood;
• Khairat Al-Shater, deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and businessman;
• Mohamed Beltagy, the deputy head of the Freedom and Justice Party, the Muslim Brotherhood’s political party in Egypt, and the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood group, Essam el-Erian;
• Abu Ela Mady, head of the Wasat Party; and
• Essam Sultan, deputy head of the Wasat Party. 

“What this document suggests,” Shoebot explained to WND, “is that the report the Egyptian newspaper Almesryoon published in Cairo may be correct in that it appears the U.S. government was paying monthly bribes in U.S. dollars, with payments as large as $85,000 a month, to top Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt, with the money being passed from the United States through the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to the Morsi government.”
Shoebat stressed to WND that the signatures seen in the document mean it could be used as evidence in the upcoming trials of key Muslim Brotherhood leaders, slated to begin Aug. 25 in Cairo.
Shoebat also noted that the names listed in the document match the names in the Egyptian newspaper Almesryoon, including Mohamed Beltagy.
Reading closely the Almesryoon report, Shoebat concluded the document is likely to be among the evidence the current government of Egypt plans to introduce in its prosecution of the Muslim Brotherhood leaders.
The charges being brought in Cairo next week include not only bribes being taken in U.S. dollars from the U.S. Embassy, but also murders and assassinations, prison escapes, sniping at and the indiscriminate killing of demonstrators, and spying or being a double-agent collaborating with foreign governments, including both the U.S. and Qatar.
“The criminal charge being reported against the Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Cairo suggest these are major trials about to start,” Shoebat explained to WND.
“And with government documents entered into evidence, like the one WND is publishing, the criminal charges will likely be construed as capital offenses, with death by hanging the likely sentence.”

Let's get real about LGBT marriage rights and acceptance in general..!

Ok I am so tired of trying to explain why I feel as I do about the LGBT movement...this is my last diatribe on the subject.
Personally I could give give a hoot less what consenting adults do in private...the clue being 'In Private' that is between them and our maker as to whether it is right or wrong...I just don't want to see and or hear about it much less have their fetish crammed down the proverbial throats of those who disagree with their choice on sexuality...imho it is nothing more nothing less than sexual immaturity...ie: Ultimate Masturbation and in some cases pure perversion.  Not worthy of marriage or special rights.. Lesbians suffer from what is called in the psychiatric profession as 'Penis Envy' c'mon let's get real here...they strap on dildos resembling a mans penis and engage in pseudo sex...homosexual men put their penis where it does not belong... in another mans anus...and just for the record I think it is gross for a man to put his penis in a woman's anus also!

So now the LGBT movement wants us to believe they were 'Born' that way...really?...hmmm please show me the gene that causes that~they can't as it does not exist!...with the exception of hermaphrodites who have both sexes...they are the only ones who should be covered under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for transgender surgery or discrimination special rights based on sex!  The LGBT movement just wants everyone to accept their sexual fetish as being the norm, by being allowed marriage rights afforded to hetrosexuals, in order to justify their sexual immaturity...it was a learned habit not a gene that caused it...whether thru sexual abuse growing up or immaturity dealing with the opposite sex...either way it can be addressed and corrected with the proper psychological / psychiatric help and counseling...however most don't want to change as they seem to enjoy their fetish...so be it... just do it in private and leave the rest of us out of it...is that to much to ask?
This sums up the immaturity concept:

Barely contained Yosemite fire impacts 2 states

 Indeed it is effecting N/Nevada big time...

In Nevada, the smoke forced officials in several counties to cancel outdoor school activities and issue health advisories, especially for people with respiratory problems...
.the smoke has settled into the Reno Nevada Basin...as well as covering the mountain top of Storey County[Virginia City] Gag~Gag cough~cough it is really bad and we are about 150 miles North of the fire...it truly is effecting the end of summer season~ visitor numbers...sure hope they get a handle on it soon!


The 200 square mile fire is just 5% contained as of this writing....uuuugh

Syrian troops find chemical agents in tunnels used by rebels: state TV

By Oliver Holmes
BEIRUT (Reuters) - Syrian state television said soldiers found chemical materials on Saturday in tunnels that had been used by rebels, rejecting blame for a nerve gas attack that killed hundreds this week and heightened Western calls for foreign intervention.
The United States said it was realigning naval forces in the Mediterranean to give President Barack Obama the option for an armed strike on Syria and a senior U.N. official arrived in Damascus to seek access for inspectors to the gas attack site.
Syrian opposition accounts that between 500 and well over 1,000 civilians were killed by gas in munitions fired by pro-government forces, and video footage of victims' bodies, have stoked demands abroad for a robust, U.S.-led response after 2-1/2 years of international inaction on Syria's conflict.

In an attempt to strengthen the government's denials of responsibility for the chemical assault in Damascus's embattled suburbs, Syrian TV said soldiers came across chemical agents in rebel tunnels during an advance into the Jobar district.
"Army heroes are entering the tunnels of the terrorists and saw chemical agents," it quoted a "news source" as saying. "In some cases, soldiers are suffocating while entering Jobar. Ambulances came to rescue the people suffocating."
Soldiers discovered a cache of gas masks and imported pills used to ward off exposure to chemical attacks, it said, promising to air footage of "material and drums" later. The report could not be independently confirmed.
State television further accused the rebels of using poison gas "as a last resort after (government forces) achieved big gains during the last few days in Jobar".
Syrian opposition activists say President Bashar al-Assad's forces fired nerve gas projectiles into Jobar and other rebellious suburbs before dawn on Wednesday. Later in the week, activists crossed front lines around Damascus to smuggle out tissue samples from victims of the attack.

The Syrian government and the rebels blamed one another for several previous reported cases of poison gas attacks, both denying responsibility. No independent verification of details has been possible due to a lack of access to battle zones.
Damascus has said it would never deploy chemical weapons against its own citizens, and has suggested rebels may have carried out the latest attack themselves to provoke foreign intervention.
Obama has long been hesitant to intervene in Syria, wary of its position straddling fault lines of wider sectarian conflict in the Middle East, and he reiterated such reluctance on Friday.
INTELLIGENCE EVIDENCE
But, in a development that could raise pressure on Obama to act, American and European security sources said U.S. and allied intelligence agencies had made a preliminary assessment that chemical weapons were used by pro-Assad forces this week.
Major world powers - including Russia, Assad's main ally which has long blocked U.N.-sponsored intervention against him - have urged the Syrian leader to cooperate with a U.N. inspection team that arrived on Sunday to pursue earlier allegations of chemical weapons assaults in the civil war.
U.N. High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Angela Kane arrived to Damascus on Saturday to press for a Syrian government green light for inspectors to examine areas of Damascus suburbs said to have been targeted on Wednesday.

Assad's government has not said whether it will grant such access despite increasing pressure from the United Nations, Western and Gulf Arab countries and Russia. If confirmed, it would be the world's deadliest chemical attack in decades.
"The solution is obvious. There is a United Nations team on the ground, just a few kilometers away. It must very quickly be allowed to go to the site to carry out the necessary tests without hindrance," French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said on Saturday during a visit to the Palestinian territories.
Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle of Germany said it expected Russia to "raise the pressure on Damascus so that the inspectors can independently investigate".
President Hassan Rouhani of Iran, Assad's most powerful Middle East ally, acknowledged on Saturday for the first time chemical weapons had killed people in Syria and called for the international community to prevent their use.
Washington said on Friday it was repositioning warships in the Mediterranean, although officials cautioned that Obama had made no decision on any military move. A U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the navy would expand its presence there to four destroyers from three.

U.S. MILITARY OPTIONS
Among the military options under consideration are targeted missile strikes on Syrian units believed responsible for chemical attacks or on Assad's air force and ballistic missile sites, U.S. officials said. Such strikes could be launched from U.S. ships or combat aircraft capable of firing missiles from outside Syrian airspace, thereby avoiding Syrian air defenses.
But the defense official stressed the Navy had received no orders to prepare for any military operations regarding Syria.
Obama called the apparent chemical attack a "big event of grave concern" and one that demanded U.S. attention, but said he was in no rush to get war-weary Americans "mired" in another Middle East conflict.
"If the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it," he said on Friday. "The notion that the U.S. can somehow solve what is a sectarian complex problem inside of Syria sometimes is overstated."
Obama's caution contrasted with calls for action from NATO allies, including France, Britain and Turkey, where leaders saw little doubt Assad's forces were behind the chemical attack.
While the West accused Assad of a cover-up by preventing the U.N. team from heading out to Damascus suburbs, Russia said the rebels were impeding an inquiry and that Assad would have no interest in using poison gas for fear of foreign intervention.

Igor Morozov, another senior pro-Kremlin lawmaker, told Interfax news agency: "Assad does not look suicidal. He well understands that in this (chemical attack) case, allies would turn away from him and ...opponents would rise. All moral constraints would be discarded regarding outside interference."
Alexei Pushkov, pro-Kremlin chairman of the international affairs committee in Russia's lower house of parliament, said: "In London they are ‘convinced' that Assad used chemical weapons, and earlier they were ‘convinced' that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It's the same old story."
Russia said last month that its analysis indicated a deadly projectile that hit a suburb of the Syrian city of Aleppo on March 19 contained the nerve agent sarin and was most likely fired by rebels.
More than two years into a civil war that has divided the Middle East along sectarian lines, the contrasting lines taken by Western governments and Russia on this week's chemical attack highlighted once again the international deadlock that has foiled effective outside efforts to stop the bloodshed.
(Additional reporting by Megan Davies in Moscow, John Irish in Paris, Madeline Chambers in Berlin, Yeganeh Torbati in Dubai and Washington bureau; Writing by Mark Heinrich; Editing by Alison Williams)

Russia to Syria: Allow U.N. Investigation of Chemical Weapons

by: KIRIT RADIA 

MOSCOW -- Russia is urging the Syrian government to allow U.N. inspectors to investigate claims of a chemical weapons attack outside Damascus this week. In a statement issued Friday, the Russian Foreign Ministry also urged Syria's armed opposition to provide the inspectors safe passage to the site of the alleged attack.
Those inspectors are already in the country. They arrived Sunday to investigate earlier claims of another chemical weapons attack near Aleppo.
The Syrian government has denied any involvement in the incident but has not yet said whether it would allow the U.N. team to investigate.
With its statement Friday, Russia joined calls from the United States and its European allies for an independent investigation into the alleged attack, which rebel groups claim killed at least 1,000 people.
But Russia also cast doubt on claims by those groups that the Syrian government was responsible, suggesting that the evidence was prepared in advance in order to frame the government.

"We're getting more new evidence that this criminal act was of a provocative nature," a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman said in a subsequent statement, suggesting the attack was "pre-planned."
"There are reports circulating on the Internet, in particular that the materials of the incident and accusations against government troops had been posted for several hours before the so-called attack. Thus, it was a pre-planned action," Alexander Lukashevich said.
Russia's doubts came as Britain's Foreign Secretary blamed government forces for the attack.
William Hague said Britain believes the attacks were carried out "by the Assad regime on a large scale."
"This is not something that a humane or civilized world can ignore," he said. Syrian opposition forces said the attack happened early Wednesday morning. Graphic videos posted online show rows of dead bodies, including several children, with no outward signs of trauma. Survivors are seen convulsing and doctors in the videos claim the injuries show the tell-tale signs of a chemical or nerve agent attack.
Russia was also skeptical of rebel claims that the government carried out its first chemical weapons attack near Aleppo in March. The Kremlin has been reluctant to abandon Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, a long-time ally and purchaser of Russian arms. Those arms have continued to flow during the two-and-a-half year conflict. Russia has repeatedly blocked attempts to impose sanctions, including an arms embargo, on the Assad government at the U.N. Security Council. Earlier this week, Russia and China reportedly worked behind the scenes to water down a Security Council statement on the latest alleged chemical weapons attack.

Last year, President Obama described a chemical weapons attack in Syria as a "red line" that would prompt greater action by the United States. After reports of the March attack surfaced, the Obama administration said it would step up material aid to certain rebel groups, but recent reports suggest the United States has yet to begin doing so on a large scale.
In an interview with CNN that aired Friday, President Obama said preliminary reports of this week's second chemical weapons attack indicate a "big event of grave concern."
"It is very troublesome. That starts getting to some core national interests that the United States has, both in terms of us making sure that weapons of mass destruction are not proliferating, as well as needing to protect our allies, our bases in the region," he said, without offering any indication of how the United States might respond.
On Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry called his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, according to a Russian Foreign Ministry statement. The two discussed Syria and agreed on the need for an "impartial" investigation into the latest alleged chemical weapons attack, the statement said.
American and Russian officials are set to meet next week to discuss plans for a long-delayed conference on Syria, which hopes to bring both the Assad government and the rebel groups to the table.

Fox News Raises the Rainbow Flag

By John Kirkwood 

“Fox News joins the Pro-Homosexual Media Bandwagon” – so says Peter LaBarbera in a 40,000-word expose that flaunts over 220 footnotes. (Read the full report here: Unfair, Unbalanced and Afraid).
While Sean Hannity chooses silence and John Stossel passive acceptance, rising star Megyn Kelly plays trans-gender advocate for Chaz Bono, then drops the “hate card” on the psychiatrist who disagrees.
Bernie Goldberg pushes “Jesus is just alright with” gay, then implies that the Biblical heroes David and Jonathan were homosexual as were Ruth and Naomi. Sean Hannity? – Still mum.
Bill O’Reilly bashes an ex-gay; Elizabeth Hasselbeck calls pope’s opposition to “gay marriage” – “inhumane.” Stossel? – Still indifferent. 

Shep Smith graces the annual report of “Out” magazine’s 50 Most Powerful Homosexuals (he does have dreamy eyes), Fox News Channel fronts tens of thousands of dollars for a Gay and Lesbian Journalists group, and Chris Wallace probes Ron Paul’s homophobia. Stossel? He’s down with gay and thinks polygamy is just groovy.
Five out of five of “The Five” agree with the “evolved” Obama on same-sex marriage; Fox hires “out” lesbian, liberal Sally Kohn – and I think Hannity just blinked.
Do your eyes deceive you? This must be about MSNBC; Fox News is the conservative network, right?
The part that really kicked me in the pants was the Pew Research Study that confirmed that Fox News had a pro “gay marriage” bias and that even liberal NPR was more “Fair and Balanced” on the issue than was Fox.
“Conservatives of all stripes had high hopes for Fox News to offset the overwhelming liberal bias of the dominant “mainstream” media networks,” writes LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH; www.aftah.org), a Chicago-based organization dedicated to exposing and opposing the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) activist movement.
If LaBarbera is anything, he is fair as he is thorough! His report asks some critical questions:
– Is Sean Hannity afraid of the “gay issue”?

Racist? No–Just Acknowledging the Black Race Toward Guns & Violence

By Skip Coryell 

Am I the only white person in America getting sick of being called a racist? I don’t think so. But just to be sure, I broke out my personal copy of the Coryell genealogy and gave it a quick read-through. As it turns out, the first of the Coryell clan (that’s “Clan” not “Klan”) to settle in America sailed from England near the start of the 18th century. The first Coryell’s settled in New Jersey and from there gradually moved inland to Michigan where I live now. As it turns out, my ancestors were more likely to fight to free the slaves than they were to own them. So I guess my ancestors were not racists.
That brings us to present day. So I gave myself a “racism” test.

Question – Have you ever owned a black person?
Answer – No
Question – Have you ever used the “N” word?
Answer – No
Question – Do you believe the white race to be superior to the black race?
Answer – No
Question – Do you have any black friends?
Answer – Yes
“Holy Hannah, Batman! I passed the test! I’m not a racist!”
Or am I? Maybe I’m really a racist deep down inside and I just don’t know it yet? Perhaps it’s like a virus living inside me, latent, waiting to be triggered by the racist gene that’s been passed secretly down through the Coryell family for hundreds of years.

Perhaps I should take another test? This time I’ll take the Jesse Jackson, white cracker quiz. It’s short and to the point.
Question – Are you white?
Answer – Yes.
Final Grade – You’re a racist.
Wow! That was so much easier than before!
Most of you know I teach concealed-carry classes, pistol safety, tactics, all that good, fun stuff. Why just this past weekend I was on the range teaching an advanced concealed-carry class to a bunch of creepy-ass, white crackers (I can’t believe they let us racists have guns.) when I heard myself say the following: “I highly recommend that you incorporate profiling into your family and personal defense strategy. Always watch the people who statistically commit most of the crime.”
Of course, being good students, they wanted to know the stats, asking me “Who commits most of the crime?” I hesitated, wondering to myself, Do I really want to open myself up to criticism? But then I gave it to them straight. “Over fifty percent of the murders in America are committed by young, African-American males.”

You could have heard a pin drop. (And we were on a gun range with shots being fired all around us.) Most white people feel uncomfortable talking about race in any setting or context.
Let’s get this straight. I am not a racist – but I do possess pre-disposed opinions.

I look at the facts. I study them. I form opinions and then I pre-judge people, sometimes whole groups of people based on my research and study. That doesn’t make me a racist. That makes me a student.
An analysis of the FBI National Crime Victimization Survey concludes that young, black males are seven times more likely to commit murder than people of other races.
Why is that happening? Are these people committing crimes simply “because” they have black skin? Of course not. That’s absurd. God made us all equal.
So why do young, African-American males commit a disproportionate number of the crimes? I really don’t know for sure, but according to Pat Buchanan in his World Net Daily commentary titled “Dead Souls of a Cultural Revolution”:

– 73 percent of black children are born to single moms.
– Black teens who make it to 12th grade may often be found reading at seventh-, eighth- or ninth-grade levels.
– In some cities the black dropout rate can hit as high as 50 percent.
– To further complicate the challenge of black communities, drugs are readily available.
– And among African-American males ages 18 to 29, in urban areas, often a third are in prison or jail, or on probation or parole, or possess a criminal record.
Whatever the cause of this problem, from my perspective as a personal defense trainer, I don’t factor in the “why”, because that doesn’t help keep my students alive. I focus on the “who”. (Not the rock band.)
If I don’t teach my students “who” is most likely to attack them, I’m doing them a great disservice. I would be derelict in my duty. Do I watch African-Americans in particular? No. My version of profiling makes more sense. I ask myself the following questions, and, if they fit the profile, then I watch them like a hawk, regardless of their race.

1. Are they young?
2. Are they traveling in groups?
3. Are they taking an unusual interest in me?
4. Are they dressed like gangbangers?
5. Are they nervous and acting suspiciously?
So you can call me a racist if you want. I don’t’ really care anymore. I’m sick of baseless accusations and they offend me. I know what goes on in the quiet confines of my own heart and so does God. And, with God as my judge, if anyone tries to hurt me or my family, I will use all legal force at my disposal. I don’t care what color they are. I’d rather be called a live racist than a dead victim.
So, I encourage all my students to begin profiling, to pray for the black community, and to remain vigilant.
Image: Anti-racist rally in Sydney 2005 Dec 18; author: M.e; Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license

Ohioans hate Boehner more than this guy

by: Drew Zahn 

Residents of Ohio were mighty mad in 2010 when hometown hero LeBron “King” James left the Cleveland Cavaliers to play basketball in Miami instead.
But today, they’re not nearly as mad at “King James” as they are at “Speaker John.”
According to a survey from Public Policy Polling, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, holds a whopping disapproval rating among Ohio voters that dwarfs their lingering venom for the reviled basketball star.
According to the survey of voters taken earlier this month, only 20 percent approve of the job Boehner is doing in Congress, while 59 percent disapprove.
James, by comparison, enjoys a 32-percent approval rating and 29-percent disapproval rating.

Even at the peak of the basketball controversy in 2010, James’ approval rating only dipped to 19 percent, while his unfavorable rating topped out at 34 percent.
As WND reported, recent GOP compromises on Obamacare, illegal immigration and spending have tarnished Boehner’s image, and the growing perspective the House speaker is just another “establishment” Republican is making it worse.
Tea partiers in particular have grown dissatisfied with Boehner’s efforts, as a recent internal poll conducted by the Tea Party Patriots and reported by U.S. News found. Of the “tens of thousands” surveyed, 81.5 percent are dissatisfied with House GOP leadership and 74.1 percent would be willing to consider Boehner’s termination as speaker.
The poll in Ohio similarly found that even among GOP voters in the state, Boehner is sitting at just 37 percent approval to 34 percent disapproval.
Compounding the speaker’s troubles, as WND has reported, is Boehner’s refusal to approve a select committee for investigating the Benghazi scandal – a move that has been nothing short of a lightning rod for controversy inside the Republican Party.

Despite allegations the CIA may be covering up a guns-to-terrorists scandal and the White House may have abandoned Americans to die in order to protect the secret, Boehner has entrusted already busy, existing House committees to look into it.
Boehner’s reluctance to launch a more serious investigation has prompted a challenge from within his own party, as Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., introduced a resolution to establish a select committee.
Over 160 House Republicans have co-sponsored the resolution demanding a heightened investigation. Boehner, however, has refused to bring it to a vote.
This has further prompted Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, to introduce H.Res. 306, a discharge petition that would overrule Boehner and force GOP leaders to allow a House vote on Wolf’s demand for a select committee.
Stockman explained in an open letter to Boehner, “No standing committee has sweeping-enough jurisdiction nor do any of them possess sufficiently wide scope of action to ferret out and put all the pieces of this puzzle together when the administration intentionally is misleading and stonewalling Congress and the American people to keep the truth hidden.”

“If I can get 218 Congressional Republicans to back me, a majority of the House,” Stockman explained on his website, “we will break through the D.C. stonewall and there will finally be a vote on creating the select committee to investigate Benghazi.”
On his July 23 program, talk radio host Mark Levin blasted the speaker for resisting his own party’s clear wishes and speculated Boehner and President Obama must have “cut some kind of a deal” not to allow the truth out about Benghazi.
“John Boehner does not want to get to the bottom of what took place in Benghazi,” Levin opined. “He’s been asked over and over again by a majority of the Republicans in the House to set up a special investigative committee, as is the tradition in these types of investigations. So you concentrate expertise and resources and time in one special committee rather than multiple committees that are also investigating other matters and overseeing other matters and handling bills and so forth.”
Levin continued, “It’s obvious at this point, ladies and gentlemen, that we have to draw a very sad conclusion: John Boehner does not want to know what took place in Benghazi on that horrific day. And I’m honestly starting to think that he’s cut some kind of deal with Obama, because why else would he do this?”

Similar questions are being asked by the organization Special Operations Speaks, or SOS, which is preparing to bring the Benghazi headache back to Boehner’s home town.
According to multiple reports, the organization is purchasing ad space on full-size billboards in Boehner’s district that suggest if it were Congressmen killed in Benghazi, instead of merely diplomats and agents, there would be a more significant investigation.
The billboards will encourage people to call Boehner’s office and demand creation of a select committee.
“We know this is a bold step, and it may raise some well-coiffed hairs on the back of John Boehner’s neck,” said SOS Co-Founder Larry Bailey. “But the fact is that he, and he alone, is blocking a full-scale Watergate-style investigation of one of the deadliest scandals in U.S. history … a scandal that reaches into the inner sanctum of the Oval Office.”

And that’s not all
Boehner’s troubles, however, may be just beginning.
As Politico reports, the widening divide between Boehner and the tea party, indeed between Republican leadership and GOP base a whole, is already spilling out onto the campaign trail for 2014.
In Idaho, for example, GOP Rep. Mike Simpson, whom Politico describes as “a longtime figure of the Washington order … a powerful Appropriations Committee cardinal and one of House Speaker John Boehner’s best friends,” is fighting a surprising primary battle against Bryan Smith, an attorney backed by the anti-tax organization Club for Growth.
The battle is revealing a trend that may sorely test GOP leadership in 2014: Primary challengers who can make electoral hay by blasting incumbent, even “conservative” Republicans as wobbly Washington insiders.
“Idaho’s 2nd Congressional District is turning into a proxy war for the middle-right of the Republican Party and the right-right of the Republican Party,” said Phil Hardy, an Idaho Republican operative and a political analyst in the state. “It’s already happening.”
And if 2014 does become a primary battle between Boehner’s “insiders” and tea-party upstarts, a July Pew Research Center survey suggests Boehner may be facing a serious challenge.

Though Pew found tea-party sympathizers are a minority of Republicans overall (37 percent), they’re much more active when it comes to voting in primaries.
“Overall, 62 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning voters who agree with the tea party say they ‘always’ vote in primary elections,” Pew reports. “By comparison, only 45 percent of non-tea-party Republican voters say they always vote in primaries.”
That 17-point gap in participation translates to tea partiers turning out in higher numbers, where they could make up nearly half (49 percent) of Republicans voting in the primaries.
Considering the Tea Party Patriots poll that found more than 80 percent unhappy with the GOP House and 74 percent ready to fire the speaker, Boehner and friends may face a stiff challenge indeed.

'Gay' lawmaker to Christians: 'We'll take your children'

by: Matt Barber 

Few people doubt that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie hopes to become president in 2016. Unfortunately for him, he may have just signed away any chance of that.
On Monday, Christie signed A3371, a draconian piece of legislation that bars licensed therapists from helping children overcome unwanted same-sex attractions, behavior or identity. This law bans help for minors even when – as is so often the case – those same-sex attractions arise from childhood sexual abuse by the likes of a Jerry Sandusky.

This law will prohibit minors and their parents from receiving counseling they desire and will force counselors to violate ethical codes because they will not be able to help clients reach their own counseling goals. This law would enslave children – whether abused or not – to a subjectively determined sexual identity that they reject.
The connection between homosexual abuse and “gay identity” is undeniable. Consider this: Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have found that homosexual men are “at least three times more likely to report CSA (childhood sexual abuse)” than heterosexual men.
Moreover, the Archives of Sexual Behavior – no bastion of conservatism – determined in a 2001 study that nearly half of all gay-identified men were molested by a homosexual pedophile: “46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender” noted the study.

For obvious reasons, this politically motivated law has been dubbed the “Jerry Sandusky Victimization Act.” Liberty Counsel, one of the fastest growing civil rights law firms in the country, has stepped in to protect New Jersey children, parents and licensed therapists. We’ve filed suit to block the law, as we’ve already blocked a similar law in California.
In his signing statement, Gov. Christie wrote: “Government should tread carefully into this area and I do so here reluctantly. I have scrutinized this piece of legislation with that concern in mind. However, I also believe that on issues of medical treatment for children we must look to experts in the field to determine the relative risks and rewards.”
Beyond the fact that Christie and the New Jersey Legislature have just violated the First Amendment rights of New Jersey parents, children and counselors, there remains another problem with his assertion. It’s not true. As with any form of therapy, the “experts” are all over the board on the issue of change therapy.

For instance, both New Jersey Democrats and Christie cited the American Psychological Association, or APA, as justification for this gross infringement on the right of self-determination. Although, no doubt, the highly liberal APA supports this and similar Sandusky Laws for political reasons, the group’s own task force on change therapy – led entirely by members who themselves are “gay”-identified or known political activists – has had to admit, nonetheless, that homosexuality itself “refers to feelings and self-concept.”
The taskforce confessed that such therapy has shown “varying degrees of satisfaction and varying perceptions of success.” It acknowledged within its own skewed, very limited “study” that some people had “altered their sexual orientation. … [P]articipants had multiple endpoints, including LGB identity, ex-gay identity, no sexual orientation identity, and a unique self-identity. … Individuals report a range of effects from their efforts to change their sexual orientation, including both benefits and harm.”

Reports of “both benefits and harm”? Exactly what might be expected from any form of therapy.
But that’s for adults. Here’s the kicker: The APA also acknowledged that there is no evidence whatsoever that change therapy harms minors. Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, addressed this, the most outrageous aspect of the law: “The very report that the governor cited for signing this law also admitted that there is absolutely zero research – none – regarding the effect of change therapy with minors.”
Get that? Gov. Christie just signed into law a bill purporting to prevent harm to minors from change therapy, citing, as the reason, an APA report that admits there is neither research nor empirical evidence to suggest that change therapy harms minors.
Is your head swimming? It should be.
The governor is one of three things. He is either: 1) ill-informed, 2) politically motivated or 3) stupid.
I don’t know, I guess he could be 4) all of the above.
Meanwhile, there are many experts outraged over this gross overreach by Christie and other New Jersey liberals. Dr. Nicholas Cummings, former president of the APA, wrote in USA Today: “Contending that all same-sex attraction is immutable is a distortion of reality. Attempting to characterize all sexual reorientation therapy as ‘unethical’ violates patient choice and gives an outside party a veto over patients’ goals for their own treatment. A political agenda shouldn’t prevent gays and lesbians who desire to change from making their own decisions.”

Dr. Cummings has testified to personally helping hundreds of formerly homosexual clients achieve the change they desired.
Things get more sinister yet. On Wednesday, New Jersey Assemblyman Tim Eustace, who sponsored the bill and is openly homosexual, bombastically compared change therapy to “beating a child” and suggested that the government take children seeking change away from their parents. He told Talk Radio 1210 WPHT, “What this does is prevent things that are harmful to people. If a parent were beating their child on a regular basis we would step in and remove that child from the house. If you pay somebody to beat your child or abuse your child, what’s the difference?”
Mat Staver responded on the same program: “It is shocking to hear the law’s sponsor threaten parents that the state will remove their children from them if they provide the counsel they need and which helps them. This is the ultimate nanny state,” he said.
I’ll take it a step further, and I think I speak for many Christian fathers. None of my three children suffer from unwanted same-sex attraction, but if any of them did and they decided to seek change therapy to reconcile their feelings with their faith, Mr. Eustace and the rest of his Gaystapo would be extremely ill-advised to crest my front porch with designs on taking my children.
Is this George Washington’s America, or Joseph Stalin’s Russia?

Military teaches colonists were 'extremists'

by: Bob Unruh 

The colonists who came to the New World and built the foundations of what now is the United States were “extremists,” and discussions that include mention of “individual liberties” are a dangerous sign, according to the U.S. government.
The education materials that originate with the Department of Defense depict conservative organizations as “hate groups” and cite the Southern Poverty Law Center, which was named in a federal court case for having identified the Family Research Council as a “hate group” simply for adhering to a biblical perspective on homosexuality.

That identification, by his own account, led Floyd Lee Corkins II to arm himself and enter the FRC offices in Washington with the intention of killing as many people as he could.
The documents were obtained by Judicial Watch, the government corruption monitor.
JW said it obtained the records under a Freedom of Information Act request that was launched months ago. The request asked for records “concerning, regarding, or related to the preparation and presentation of training materials on hate groups or hate crimes distributed or used by the Air Force.”

The 133 pages make up a January “Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute” “student guide” called “extremism.”
For example, it warns: “Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publically (sic) espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.”
And it adds: “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”
The 9/11 attacks by Muslims who killed nearly 3,000 people are called a “historical event.”
Traits of extremists include attacking an opponent’s character, name-calling, sweeping generalizations, no proof of arguments, viewing the opposition as evil, arguing through intimidation, using slogans or buzzwords, assuming moral superiority and doomsday thinking.
“[A]ctive participation…with regard to extremist organizations is incompatible with military service and, is therefore prohibited,” the educational materials read.

According to Judicial Watch: “In April 2013, following a terrorist shooting at the Family Research Council (FRC) headquarters that occurred in August 2012, Judicial Watch filed multiple FOIA requests to determine what, if any, influence SPLC’s branding of hate groups had on government agencies. On its website, the SPLC has depicted FRC as a ‘hate group,’ along with other such mainstream conservative organizations as the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, and Coral Ridge Ministries. At the time of the shooting, FRC president Tony Perkins accused the SPLC of sparking the shooting, saying the shooter ‘was given a license to shoot … by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center.’”
The report said the document was obtained from the Air Force, but it originated in a Department of Defense office and is “therefore thought likely to be used in other agency components.”
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said the Obama administration has a nasty habit of equating basic conservative values with terrorism.”

“And now, in a document full of claptrap, its Defense Department suggests that the Founding Fathers, and many conservative Americans, would not be welcome in today’s military,” he said. “And it is striking that some the language in this new document echoes the IRS targeting language of conservative and tea party investigations. After reviewing this document, one can’t help but worry for the future and morale of our nation’s armed forces.”
The lesson includes: “All nations have an ideology, something in which they believe. When a political ideology falls outside the norms of a society, it is known as extremism. When extremists take their ideology to the next level and believe that it is the only right ideology to follow, it becomes supremism.”
The report repeatedly quotes from the SPLC, including using its definitions verbatim.
WND reported earlier, however, that Corkins had used SPLC’s list of “hate groups,” including the Family Research Council, to identify those he wanted to kill.
Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, now an executive for FRC, said the problem continues.
“Nothing has been done regarding the dangerous and potentially deadly actions of SPLC,” he said recently as the anniversary of the shooting attack approached. “SPLC is now connected to terrorism in federal court. Yet no one in the mainstream media seems to care. When will the media hold groups like SPLC accountable?”

Corkins was subdued after shooting building manager Leo Johnson in the arm and injuring him. A video of the attack shows Corkins entering the building and approaching Johnson, then leaning over to place his backpack on the floor. When he straightens up, Corkins points a semi-automatic handgun directly at Johnson and fires.
Despite being wounded in the arm, Johnson was able to subdue Corkins after a brief struggle.
It was in an interview with FBI officers later when Corkins fingered SPLC as his inspiration.
Asked by the FBI how he picked FRC to attack, Corkins stated, “It was a, uh, Southern Poverty Law, lists, uh, anti-gay groups. I found them online. I did a little bit of research, went to the website, stuff like that.”
FRC said that when Corkins later pleaded guilty to a charge of domestic terrorism, SPLC “was connected in federal court in this first domestic terrorism conviction in Washington, D.C., under the post 9/11 law.”
“Floyd Corkins admitted his intention to ‘kill the people in the building and then smear a Chick-fil-A sandwich in their face,’” FRC explained. “The Southern Poverty Law Center has thus far refused to remove Family Research Council as a ‘hate group’ from its target map.”

Boykin has suggested he would like the U.S. government and its agencies to discontinue using, citing or working with the Southern Poverty Law Center. And he said the media should stop citing SPLC.
According to the government’s sentencing memorandum in the case against Corkins, the “mass killing of innocent civilians” was averted narrowly by “the heroic intervening actions of Leonardo Johnson, a building manager/security guard who was seriously injured as a result.”
See “Jihad in America: The Grand Deception,” which exposes the threat to Americans that is hidden in plain sight.
Among the counts to which Corkins has pleaded guilty is an Act of [Domestic] Terrorism while Armed.
In an FBI interview of Corkins after he was taken into custody, an agent asked Corkins, “What was your intention. … You’re … a political activist you said?”
Corkins responded: “Yeah, I wanted to kill the people in the building and then smear a Chicken-fil-A sandwich on their face.”
FBI: “And you, what was your intention when you went in there with the gun?”
Corkins: “Uh, it was to kill as many people as I could.”

Key to the case, according to the government’s document, was that, “He had identified the FRC as an anti-gay organization on the Southern Poverty Law Center website.”
FRC officials repeatedly have explained they adhere to a biblical perspective on homosexuality, but are not “anti-gay.”
See the video of the attack:
WND also has reported that under Obama, the federal government repeatedly has portrayed conservatives and other critics of the progressive agenda coming from the White House as extremists.
WND previously reported DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano made terrorists portrayed in a public service announcement look Caucasian.
The PSA depicted a typical woman terrorist as Caucasian, in her late 20s or early 30s, with brunette hair, stylish clothing, high heels and a shoulder bag. A man? About the same age, short hair, wearing a shirt and slacks and familiar with technology, as he’s wearing an earpiece cellphone. And Caucasian.
The PSA asks that people watch out for those types of individuals and report them to authorities.
As WND reported, a West Point study released by the U.S. Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center linked those with “fundamental” positions, such as opposing abortion, to terror.
The study, “Challenges from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right,” says the major far-right threats are from “a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.”

Author Arie Perliger cites “anti-abortionists” as an active threat for terrorist activity.
“The anti-abortionists have been extremely productive during the last two decades, amassing 227 attacks, many of them perpetrated without the responsible perpetrators identified or caught,” Perliger wrote. “And while, in both cases, the 1990s were more violent than the last decade, in the case of anti-abortion, the trend is much more extreme, as 90 percent of attacks were perpetrated before 2001.”
Herb Titus, a constitutional law professor, former dean of the Regent University School of Law and distinguished fellow with the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought, says it’s an attempt to link conservative thought with violence.
“Professor Perliger has adopted the strategy of many left-wing members of the professoriate, concentrating on the behavior of a few in order to discredit many who hold similar views but who do not engage in any form of violence,” Titus said.
“His theory is that of the iceberg, that which as seen may be small, but it hides what is a much larger threat just below the surface. Obviously, the professor disagrees with those who favor small government, cutting back of federal government encroachments upon the powers of the state and to discredit this movement focuses on a few gun-toting militia,” Titus said.
The federal government also has issued reports under Obama describing returning veterans, those who support third-party candidates for president and oppose abortion and support the Constitution as potential terrorists.

Egyptian Realities vs. American Fantasies

by: Newt Gingrich

The gap between Egyptian realities and the opinions of American leaders of both parties is simply amazing.

The American leaders seem to live in a fantasy world in which America is all powerful, our definition of legitimacy is unchallengeable, and our right to take risks with the lives of other people is unquestioned.

Both Democratic and Republican leaders (and their allies in the news media) seem to have no sense of the realities facing the Egyptian military.

Put yourselves in the shoes of the senior officers of the Egyptian military. 

Two years ago they watched the Obama Administration abandon President Hosni Mubarak. Mubarak had been President of Egypt for 30 years and throughout that time had supported the United States -- through two wars in Iraq, the decade of war in Afghanistan, and an amazing number of other contingencies. His reward for being a faithful ally was abandonment and imprisonment.

The Obama desertion of Mubarak almost certainly reminded the Egyptian military of President Jimmy Carter's desertion of the Shah of Iran. In November of 1978 President Carter toasted the Shah as a great ally. A few months later, the Americans pressured him to give in to the "reformers." The Shah was driven from his country and died overseas. His generals were imprisoned and many executed. Their families fled Iran. Today, 34 years later, the "reformers" have consolidated their dictatorship and are trying to build a nuclear weapon. 

The United States invaded Iraq and left behind a high level of violence.

The United States helped drive Qaddafi from power and has left Libya in shambles.

The United States has wrung its hands and publicly dithered while Assad has worked with the Iranians and the Russians to consolidate his control over Syria.

American senators and American secretaries of state can fly to Cairo to offer advice and advocate idealistic but impractical reforms. When they are done lecturing Egyptians, they fly home to safety.

The senior officers of the Egyptian military know that they will still be there when the Americans leave. Indeed, many of them remember the Americans abandoning their allies in South Vietnam.

Most senior American officials do not understand this and assume their prestige is unquestionable.

Cutting off American aid will have no effect. (I favor cutting it off because it is no longer furthering American interests.) The Saudis and their Persian Gulf allies have already committed $10 in new aid for every dollar of American aid. 

The senior officers of the Egyptian military know that their lives and their families' lives depend on defeating the Muslim Brotherhood.

They know that Nasser, Sadat, and Mubarak all followed hard line policies against the Muslim Brotherhood and it worked.

They know that the Algerian Army rejected an Islamist election victory in 1991 and fought an eleven year civil war to impose order on Algeria. More than 44,000 Algerians were killed in the campaign to defeat Islamists. Westerners were horrified. The Algerian Army won.

The hardest-line example of survival through repression was Hafez Assad of Syria who survived in power for 30 years (from 1970 to his death in 2000). Assad was relentlessly tough in fighting the Muslim Brotherhood. When they tried to assassinate him in 1980 he retaliated by executing over 600 prisoners. When the city of Hama sought to rebel he crushed it so thoroughly that it became a model of horrifying repression. Tom Friedman of the New York Times coined the term "Hama Rules". In Hama that meant literally destroying entire neighborhoods to eliminate opposition. That brutal operation cost 20,000 Syrians their lives but Assad stayed in power. 

The United States must rethink its entire policy in the Middle East.

We have to recognize that on a bipartisan basis for the last 12 years we have tried to create and impose an American fantasy in Middle Eastern realities.

Egypt is a good place to begin rethinking this policy.

Author: Axelrod fears impeachment movement

wnd exclusive
The author of a soon-to-be-released book documenting the case for impeaching President Obama has some strong words for senior White House strategist David Axelrod.

Earlier today, Axelrod went on MSNBC to label impeachment talk “absurd.”
Axelrod further slammed Sen. Tom Coburn R-Okla., who stated Obama was getting “perilously close” to impeachment, calling Coburn’s remarks “way out of bounds.”
“He speaks to a kind of virus that has infected our politics that really has to be curbed,” Axelrod stated, mocking Coburn’s statement as “his considered legal opinion as an obstetrician.”
“This is a transparent attempt to discredit legitimate concerns over Obama’s possible violations of the Constitution, the sidestepping of Congress to make de facto law and his apparent and systemic abuse of the executive authority,” stated Aaron Klein, co-author of the new WND Books title, “Impeachable Offenses: The case to remove Barack Obama from office.”
“Alexrod’s comments represent classic Saul Alinsky tactics of mocking and smearing a movement you fear, of attempting to paint the movement of concern as fringe when it is nothing of the sort,” Klein told WND.

Besides members of Congress discussing the issue, the impeachment campaign continues to snowball, with an “Overpasses for Obama’s Impeachment” movement reportedly sweeping the nation.
WND first reported on the booming movement in July, and now it claims it has mushroomed to 40,000 members to become “the largest grassroots movement in the nation” in the few weeks since it was launched in June.
The group’s national website has links to Facebook pages of groups in all 50 states, plus Washington, D.C.
MSNBC previously reported Klein and Elliott’s “Impeachable Offenses” is fueling the national conversation to impeach Obama.
The book lays out the blueprint for impeaching Obama, alleging high crimes, misdemeanors, bribery and other offenses committed against the U.S. Constitution and the limitations on the executive office.
MSNBC.com reported: “The national conversation to impeach the president has been fueled in part by an upcoming book ‘Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama from Office’ that’s set to be released by WND Books next week.”

Continued the news network: “The authors of that book lay out a number of criticisms of the president, including his handling of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and his failure to ‘preserve, protect, and defend’ the Constitution.
“That includes the argument that the president’s health reform law is unconstitutional, even though the Supreme Court ruled more than a year ago that it is constitutional.”
Yesterday, Politico reported “Impeachable Offenses” will be hand-delivered to members of Congress when they return from recess Sept 9.
Earlier this week, BuzzFeed.com reported Klein and Elliott’s new book “ushers in the Obama Impeachment movement.”
The Daily Mail of London has called the “Impeachable Offenses” “explosive,” reporting the book contains a “systematic connect-the-dots exercise that the president’s defenders will find troublesome.”

GOP Leadership Plan for CR/Obamacare: Meekness or Malice

 
And Speaker John Boehner is enabling these new taxes...he is part of the problemo...#RINO
 
[ Boehner Blocks ObamaCare Shutdown ]
John Boehner wants to initiate Obamas Soylent Green... Co-conspirator!
http://youtu.be/OsVQPsiwkBI





By: Daniel Horowitz 
At some point, rank-and-file conservative activists will have to confront an inconvenient reality.  The Republicans in Washington are not just dumb or spineless – they are the problem.  They don’t share our values and seek to undermine our beliefs.  The only way that will change is if we return the favor and thwart their political careers.
Earlier this evening, Speaker John Boehner announced his grand plans for fighting Obamacare in the budget.  He will pass a short-term continuing resolution (CR) until some time in December, grouping the new budget deadline with the debt ceiling date, and create another grand end-of-year fiscal cliff.  He will fund Obamacare in the short term CR, but by George, he will fight like hell in the debt ceiling battle!  For now, they will make the short term CR about locking in the sequester cuts.
Here are some points to ponder:

• I don’t think Charlie Brown would have attempted to kick the football so many times.  Let’s review the past three years.  In January 2011, Republicans pledged to defund Obamacare in the FY 2011 CR and cut of $100 billion in spending.  They lied.  Ultimately, they only cut $352 million and funded Obamacare. They promised to fight on the next debt ceiling battle and cut trillions.  They caved on August 1, 2011 for the McConnell debt increase, and handed Obama a free $2.4 trillion debt ceiling ticket to take him past the election.  The only thing we got in return was the sequester, which prioritized military cuts over everything else. 

We were then promised that the real show would begin in September when they fight for the new Ryan budget for FY 2012.  They punted until the end of the year, ultimately passing a massive omnibus bill, which funded Obamacare, vitiated the Ryan budget, and violated every tenet of the GOP Pledge to America.  In 2012, they caved on funding Obamacare in the FY 2013 CR, punting it to March 2013 under the pretense that we would win the election and have even more leverage.  Then they caved on the McConnell tax increases at year’s end, noting that the default position was against us.  But, the contended, wait until the debt ceiling when the default position is no debt limit increase, and we will have more leverage.
That sentiment changed quickly when leadership brought down a number of phony pollsters to the annual retreat at Williamsburg, warning members of Armageddon if they fight on the debt ceiling.  So they cleverly “suspended” the debt ceiling at the end of January, promising to first fight on the CR in March, and locking the sequester and pass a better budget that would balance in ten years.  Then, they would head into the next debt ceiling fight unified behind that path to balance, which defunded Obamacare.
A number of conservatives signed onto the “Williamsburg Accord” with the promise of a better budget than the previous year.  Leadership rearranged the deck and used the fiscal cliff and Obamacare tax increases, along with new unrealistic CBO projections of revenue to repackage the exact same budget from the previous year.  Conservatives had voted for Obamacare all for a false promise and the sequester cuts that were already locked in by default.

Now they are, once again, punting on the CR for the debt ceiling!!!

• Anyone who believes these people when they say they are scared to fight on the CR but will fight on the debt ceiling is not playing with a full deck.  According to the establishment, the debt ceiling is even more radioactive, as it raises the specter of a default, not just funding for government.
• We know that deep down they believe Obamacare is here to stay.  So why not man up and publicly proclaim that belief?
• Punting the Obamacare fight will free up September to pass amnesty.  Why bother with the nuisance of Obamacare three weeks before implementation when they can score points for Obama?
• Back in January, they suspended the debt ceiling so that the CR and debt ceiling would not be grouped together, and we could fight each one individually.  Or so we were told.  Now they are punting the CR so it will coincide with the debt ceiling.  What gives?  Perhaps, they want to force one big grand deal with a bunch of shiny objects so the base only gets betrayed once, instead of betraying them now and then incurring their wrath in December.
• Once again, the sequester is the shiny object.  But didn’t we already lock in the sequester in March?  Wasn’t that already used to sugar-coat the bitter pill of funding Obamacare in March?  Why recycle it?  Are we going to put a double lock in it?
• If Republicans are not willing to even engage in brinkmanship, and clearly telegraph the message to Dems that they are terrified of brinkmanship – to the extent that they are willing to engage in a civil war with the base – why will Democrats ever feel the need to acquiesce even to leadership’s watered-down requests?  They will just sit there and wait them out, knowing that Republicans will always blink first, even over something like Obamacare, which is an albatross for Dems headed into an election year fought largely on red states.
• And where is Mitch McConnell?  In the witness protection program?

 

Beaten to Death in Plain Sight: 8-Year Old Gabriel’s Story

In May 2013, Gabriel Fernandez was beaten to death (allegedly) by his mother & her boyfriend. The main person who tried to save his life was his 1st grade teacher, Jennifer Garcia. PolitiChick anchor Ann-Marie Murrell interviews Jennifer about her important role in Gabriel’s very brief life.

http://youtu.be/XfQ_zhI24ZQ

Obama's Racial Politics Has Real Victims

Patriot,
I woke up this morning and was shocked to learn of the tragic murder of 88-year-old World War II veteran Delbert "Shorty" Belton.

"Shorty" had just arrived at his local Eagles Lodge on Wednesday night. Before he headed inside to play pool with friends, two black teenagers allegedly attacked him and brutally beat him with flashlights. He died soon after in a hospital.

Shorty's friends are in shock ...

"He was always there for me when I needed him," said one longtime friend.

"Every time I come into town, he'd have a project for me to do," said another.

His roommate reflected on Shorty's service in World War II, noting that Mr. Belton "was shot when he was 18 years old on the beaches of Okinawa. He’ll do anything in the world for anybody.” 

This brutal attack on Shorty, along with what seems to be a recent increase in racially-motivated attacks, indicates our nation has entered a tenuous time of racial tensions.

And I'm ready to point the finger of blame directly at the White House.

+ + Obama's Racial Politics Has Real Victims

These tensions and attacks have undeniably been fueled by a President who continually uses racial politics and who intentionally and repeatedly chose to personalize Trayvon Martin's death.

Obama said a year ago that Trayvon "could have been my son." Then after the trial was complete and a jury found George Zimmerman not quilty, Obama raised the ante even further by saying:

"Trayvon Martin could have been me." 

By speaking such words to an African-American community who felt Martin had been murdered and who also view Obama as a political savior, the President lit the tinder box of racial tensions.

As a result, Obama's politics of race now has real victims in "Shorty" Belton, Christopher Lane, the lesser-known Matthew Owens (who was beaten nearly to death recently by a mob of 20 who shouted, "That's justice for Trayvon!") and others.

+ + Mr. Obama: End Your Politics Of Race!

Before there are more victims, it's time for President Obama to step forward and, once and for all, end the politics of race that's fueling the rise in tensions across our land.

Today, Grassfire is launching a NATIONAL PETITION calling on President Obama to END RACIAL POLITICS NOW, before tensions escalate further and more innocent Americans die. Go here to join me in signing:

http://grassfire.com/?p=2574 

Obama must be held accountable for his words. Certainly, he's not the sole or even primary cause of racial tensions in our land. But his words have power, especially in the black community.

By personalizing Trayvon Martin, he has fueled these tensions and put innocent Americans at risk. It's his moral duty to retract such inflammatory statements and intentionally move away from the politics of race.

Thank you for your consideration.

Steve Elliott

Allen West: I have yet to hear a peep out of Head of NAACP Ben Jealous at all

by Allen West via Facbook

Reprehensible and disgusting. Two black male teenagers are being sought in the beating death of 88-year-old Delbert Benton. Mr. Benton was an Army WW II veteran who survived combat during the bloody Battle of Okinawa. This must end! I have yet to hear a peep out of Head of NAACP Ben Jealous at all. As an Army combat veteran and son of a WW II veteran I am beyond angry. We have a problem in the black community and it is high time we taught this generation of young black men a lesson in respect, dignity, and honor. This can no longer be tolerated. Mr. Benton was an American treasure. Farewell my Brother. http://bit.ly/16RZA4l

Sad. This is all Obama’s fault. Check it out: You likely haven’t heard the story of two black teens who killed 88-year old WWII veteran Delbert Belton. Belton survived being wounded in action during the Battle of Okinawa only to be beaten and left for dead by two teens at the Eagles Lodge in Spokane on Wednesday evening, later succumbing to his injuries the following morning at Sacred Heart Medical Center. Two of Obama’s sons have stolen one of America’s Greatest Generation…fitting in the time of Obamanation. I suspect Obama is planning a medal ceremony for the two youths, given they have followed Obama’s racism script to a T. After all, black teens killing whites has become America’s fastest growing sport.
Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2013/08/black-teens-killing-whites-has-become-americas-fastest-growing-sport/#F3GeYvhekk33ujqs.99

California Students Forced to Kneel Before Principal

It’s no wonder conservatives are going to private and home schools in droves.
Check it out:

Claiming it was a “safety policy,” California elementary public school principal Dana Carter instituted a policy that required his students to “kneel down on one knee and wait for the principal or another administrator to dismiss them.” One parent claimed that her daughter was forced to kneel before the principal “like a king” with her hands at her side until Carter came out, lifted his arms, and told students to go to class.

Continue Reading on www.breitbart.com ...

Senator: Obama 'perilously close' to impeachment

Says administration has violated the Law
by: Garth Kant 

WASHINGTON – The momentum to remove the president is growing rapidly, as almost every day another lawmaker raises the possibility of impeaching President Obama.
Now, it’s Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla, who said Wednesday the president is getting “perilously close” to qualifying for impeachment.

Speaking at the Muskogee Civic Center in Oklahoma, the senator said, “What you have to do is you have to establish the criteria that would qualify for proceedings against the president, and that’s called impeachment.”
“That’s not something you take lightly, and you have to use a historical precedent of what that means. I think there’s some intended violation of the law in this administration, but I also think there’s a ton of incompetence, of people who are making decisions.”
A constituent then responded, “Even if there is incompetence, the IRS forces me to abide by the law.”
Coburn said he agreed, and added, Those are serious things, but we’re in a serious time. I don’t have the legal background to know if that rises to high crimes and misdemeanor, but I think they’re getting perilously close.”
The senator took pains to make clear that it was nothing personal against the president.
“Barack Obama is personal friend of mine. He became my friend in the Senate but that does not mean I agree in any way with what he’s doing or how he’s doing it. And I quite frankly think he’s in a difficult position he’s put himself in, and if it continues, I think we’re going to have another constitutional crisis in our country in terms of the presidency,” the Oklahoman observed.

Coburn is just the latest lawmaker to openly speculating about the possibility of impeaching President Obama.
Visit WND’s online Impeachment Store to see all the products related to ousting Obama.
On Monday, Rep. Kerry Bentivolio, R-Mich., said it would be a “dream come true” to impeach President Barack Obama.

Bentivolio told the Birmingham Bloomfield Republican Club Meeting, “You know, if I could write that bill and submit it, it would be a dream come true.”
He told constituents, “I feel your pain and I know. I stood 12 feet away from that guy and listened to him, and I couldn’t stand being there. But because he is president I have to respect the office. That’s my job as a congressman. I respect the office.”
Bentivolio said that experience with the president caused him to actually consult with attorneys about what it would take to remove Obama from office.
“These are lawyers, Ph.D.s in history, and I said, ‘Tell me how I can impeach the president of the United States.’”
But, as with other lawmakers who’ve discussed the issue recently, Bentivolio stopped short of saying it’s time to file articles of impeachment, while acknowledging some significant hurdles.
“Until we have evidence, you’re going to become a laughing stock if you’ve submitted the bill to impeach the president because, No. 1, you’ve got to convince the press,” Bentivolio warned.
“There are some people out there no matter what Obama does he’s still the greatest president they’ve ever had. That’s what you’re fighting,” the congressman concluded.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, echoed those remarks at an event Monday, when asked about impeaching the president.
“It’s a good question,” Cruz responded.
“And I’ll tell you the simplest answer: To successfully impeach a president you need the votes in the U.S. Senate.”
Republicans would also need the votes in the House, which Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, thinks they have.
Just last week, Farenthold said he is often asked why Congress doesn’t impeach the president.
He said he answers, “[I]f we were to impeach the president tomorrow, we would probably get the votes in the House of Representatives to do it.”
But, like Cruz, Farenthold sees the lack of votes in the Senate as a roadblock.
The congressman also worries about what would happen if they tried to impeach Obama and failed. He believes the unsuccessful attempt to impeach President Clinton hurt the country.
In May, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., suggested Obama could be impeached over a White House cover-up after the attack in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11, 2012.
He told listeners of “The Rusty Humphries Show,” “Of all the great cover-ups in history – the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate, all the rest of them – this … is going to go down as most egregious cover-up in American history.”

But even with that searing indictment, Inhofe, too, stopped short of calling for impeachment.
Another lawmaker who has offered tentative support for impeachment is Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, who said in May he considers it a possibility.
“I’m not willing to take it off the table, but that’s certainly not what we’re striving for,” he told CNN.
Other members of Congress who have uttered about possible impeachment for a variety of reasons in recent years include Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.; Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.; Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas; Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; Rep. Trey Radel, R-Fla.; and Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.
One Republican actually has come out and called for the impeachment of Obama, and he did it more than two years ago – before he became a congressman.
Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., posted a list of reasons on his website in June 2011, before he was elected to office in 2012.
1) Breaking his oath to uphold the Constitution.
2) Attacking a non-threatening country.
3) We are a sovereign nation and do not take commands from the U.N. or NATO.
4) Not responding within the required 60 days to inform and justify to Congress why he used the War Powers Act (which is reserved for National emergency and threats to our country by foreign invaders when Congress is convened).
5) Creating and passage of the proven unconstitutional Affordable Patient Health Care Act.
6) The unconstitutional Nationalization of GM and Chrysler.

A growing public interest in impeachment may be evidenced by the huge advance sales for WND’s latest book, “Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama from Office.”  (Order online at the WND Superstore and the book comes with a free Impeach Obama bumper sticker.)
“Impeachable Offenses,” to be published by WND Books on Aug. 27, has already gone into its third printing, co-author Aaron Klein said, “due to unexpected demand from bookstores.”
“Clearly a large segment of the population is concerned Obama has overstepped his executive authority and has used his office to circumvent Congress to change, ignore, or at times perhaps invent de facto law,” he added.
WND Books CEO Joseph Farah told Buzzfeed, “We knew this was going to be a popular book. What we didn’t realize is that retailers would recognize it in advance and place large orders before the public weighed in.”
The impeachment passion has been evident in growing numbers on the streets of America in recent weeks.
WND first reported on the booming movement “Overpasses for Obama’s Impeachment” in July, and now the group claims it has mushroomed to 40,000 members across America to become “the largest grassroots movement in the nation” in the few weeks since it was launched in June.
The group’s national website has links to Facebook pages of groups in all 50 states, plus Washington, D.C.

And it is on those Facebook pages that organizers recruit and inform, while fellow members share their experiences and bond, as the group’s Internet-age version of grassroots democracy takes root and flourishes in cyberspace and on the streets.
The clout of “Overpasses for Obama’s Impeachment” is growing so fast, Press Secretary Jennifer Hitt told WND, “We would like to get to the point we can help fund a 2016 candidate. The movement started with the main Facebook page, grew to the state Facebook pages, and now we are trying to get most people to register on our state forums on the website, Overpasses.org.”
“Overpasses to Impeach Obama” has gone from local protests to nationwide events. The first “National Patriot Wave” was held Aug. 6, with rallies in more than 300 American cities and towns. “National Patriot Wave II” on Aug. 17 had planned for rallies in all 50 states.
Hitt said the buzz isn’t limited to one area: “It’s nationwide. The energy is crazy high.”
Visit WND’s online Impeachment Store to see all the products related to ousting Obama.
WND has reported Watergate investigator Bob Woodward of the Washington Post compares Obama to Richard Nixon.  Even Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin has called for Obama’s removal.
There’s also a national petition that calls on Congress to immediately investigate the “unconstitutional and impeachable offenses” of Obama.

It is addressed to Congress and cites a number of scandals in just the last few weeks and months.
Among them are the “lethal and prolonged terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, and the subsequent ‘Watergate-era cover-up.’” And then there’s the big – and getting bigger – scandal involving the federal government’s use of the Internal Revenue Service to harass and attack conservative groups.
There’s also the spying and harassment of journalists.
“Top constitutional attorneys from across the political spectrum now agree that Obama has committed certain specific offenses that unquestionably rise to the level of impeachable ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,” the petition explains.
Sign the petition right away!
And that’s even before the issue of “Obama’s policy of targeted assassinations of U.S. citizens without any constitutionally required due process – including the drone assassination of an American-born 16-year-old as he was eating dinner.”
There’s also the “disastrous ‘Fast and Furious’ operation in which approximately 2,000 firearms were directed from U.S. gun shops across the U.S.-Mexico border and into the hands of members of Mexican drug cartels.”

The petition also cites Obama’s refusal to fulfill his obligation to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.
That’s all in addition to the alleged illegal “recess” appointments of several officials as well as the Obama Justice Department’s refusal to prosecute voter intimidation, his appointment of 30 “czars” and general contempt for Congress and the American people.
The petition states: “Therefore, we the undersigned urge Congress to immediately undertake a full and impartial investigation into the many blatantly unconstitutional actions of Barack Obama. For members of Congress, each of whom has also sworn a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution, to allow a president to routinely flout the Supreme Law of the land without being held accountable is equally repugnant to a free country and a free press.”
Tens of thousands already are on board with the effort, which is just the latest in a long string of calls for impeachment or an investigation.