Obama Buying Votes With Free Phones & Union Pays People to Protest Romney Visit

by da Tagliare 

On Wednesday, Mitt Romney was campaigning in Bedford OH, a suburb of Cleveland.  Bedford is a small town of less than 15,000 people.  It’s not a rich town either as the median household income is around $37,000.  The town has a diverse racial mix of 53% white, 42% black and rest a mixture of Asian, Hispanic and American Indian.
With Bedford’s location near Cleveland and having a large population of blacks, one expects there to be an abundance of people favoring Obama and more than happy to protest Romney’s visit.  However, that may not have been the case and there be more Romney fans in the small community than expected.
To make sure that there were enough people protesting Romney’s visit, the Service Employees International Union hired a number of union people, paying them $11 an hour and bussed them Bedford.  Founded in 1921, the SEIU has literally become an extension of the liberal progressives that have taken over the Democratic Party.  Their 1.8 million members are sure votes for Obama come November.  Note in the video below that once the person filming them starts asking questions, it doesn’t take long for others in the crowd to start squelching any further comments.

http://youtu.be/G5DTqvX74O4 

 

One of the protesters at Bedford revealed that she is for Obama because he gave her and every other poor person in Cleveland a free phone.  When asked what she didn’t like about Romney, she couldn’t think of anything except to say that he sucks.  Obviously, that free phone was more important to her than any of the real issues.

See Video: http://youtu.be/tpAOwJvTOio 

Evidently this Cleveland woman is part of the federal government’s Universal Service Fund that provides free cell phones to people with a low income.  Not only are they getting free cell phones, but the federal mandate forces the local cell service providers to give each person 250 free minutes per month.  Guess who’s paying for all those minutes?  Yep, every other regular cell phone customer that pays their bills.
Decades ago, Chicago was known for crooked elections and buying votes.  At one time, it was common place for supporters of one candidate to stand outside a polling place and give each person a dollar if they would vote for their candidate.  (This was back in the days when a dollar was actually worth something.)  Since Obama started his political career in Chicago, it looks like he learned from the city’s history how to buy votes.

Couple Endures Death Threat, Vandalism Over Romney Sign

By: Tad Cronn

Business owners Dee and Gene Liboff of Woodland Hills, California, just wanted to show their support for Mitt Romney in the coming election by putting up a handmade sign in front of their home.

Dee and Gene Liboff’s handmade Romney sign has been repeatedly vandalized.

But what they were shown in return is the ugly side of some Obama supporters.Ever since putting up the sign, the Liboffs, who are members of the San Fernando Valley Patriots, have been engaged in a running war with vandals who have cut, pulled down, torn apart and ripped the sign out of the ground.
Every time it happens, the Liboffs get out the tape and glue and put the sign back up. While doing so, they have been yelled at and cursed.
A passing biker who saw Dee fixing the sign screamed, “You are dead.”

But things took an even darker turn when the sign was vandalized again and the Liboffs found what appeared to be a Molotov cocktail left beside the ruins of the sign, possibly as a warning.
The makeshift bomb, consisting of a  jar full of some sort of liquid and a rag stuffed in the jar mouth, prompted the bomb squad and fire department to begin a serious investigation into the targeting of the Liboffs’ sign. Police and fire officials have assured the Liboffs that they have their full support.
All the vandalism and threats have taken a toll on the Liboffs. “It hit me pretty hard this last time physically and emotionally,” Dee said.  “This is not the country I believed in and couldn’t wait until I was old enough to vote. We must save our freedom. Socialism and communism are a deep cancer eating up the dreams of our children’s future.”

Dee notes that there are also good people in the neighborhood who have expressed support and sympathy for their troubles as well. So the sign remains.
“I worked on that beat up. battle-scarred banner and it is up again with a warning poster in English and Spanish saying, ‘Smile, you are on camera and this area is being investigated,’” Dee said.

“California is Where the 2nd Revolution Will Start!”

Folks, THIS is what a “politician” should be–getting out on the streets with the people, listening, fighting for our rights. Once elected, few get much further than their cushy offices. As a Militia Man, Tim Donnelly gathered a group of people and went to the Mexican border and tried to build their own fence, prompting the Daily Show to do a show all about it. Now as a California Assemblyman, Donnelly is openly debating each and every bill that reaches his desk (much to the dismay of his fellow politicians). Be inspired by “Patriot–not Politician” Tim Donnelly, who gives REAL HOPE to California.
via PolitiChicks.tv

http://youtu.be/NhKs9abKqIs

Attorney Says Pro Same-Sex Marriage Ads are Con Job

by da Tagliare 

The legalization of same-sex marriage is spreading like a cancer that will in time kill this country.  If you study history, you will find that God eventually destroys every nation or culture that accepts homosexuality as a normal way of life.  Look at Sodom, Gomorrah, ancient Rome and Greece to name a few.
Currently six states, including the District of Columbia, have legalized same-sex marriages.  Nearly 40 states have passed laws banning same-sex marriage.  This November, 4 states (Maine, Minnesota, Maryland and Washington, have a same-sex initiative on the ballot calling for the legalization of same-sex marriage.
In these four states and perhaps several others, gay rights groups have been running a series of television commercials promoting the acceptance and normalcy of gay marriage.  A number of those ads feature a traditional married man and wife, and/or minister who talk about how same-sex marriage is okay.  In fact, some of these ads only feature heterosexual people in the promotion of same-sex marriage.
One attorney says that these ads are purposefully trying to mis-represent the views of the majority of the American people and that in essence, the commercials are con jobs.  Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action, and Associate Dean with Liberty University School of Law told OneNewsNow:

“They are distracting and diverting attention away from the reality of what the homosexual lifestyle is all about — distorted sexual behavior — and trying to couch it in terms of fairness, and having heterosexual folks as the face of so-called same-sex marriage is a clever way to pull the wool over voters’ eyes.”
“Because people naturally bristle when they think about what would it take actually consummate a so-called same-sex marriage between a man and a man.  People naturally have a revulsion of this abnormal, disordered sexual behavior.”

Barber also tries to explain to people that when they vote in favor of same-sex marriage that in reality they are voting for the deconstruction of the institution of natural marriage.Anyone who has grown up in a traditional family will tell you that they learn different things from dad and mom and that it takes both to really make a difference.  On the converse, many kids who grew up in a single-parent home will tell you that they always felt like something was missing.  Most single-parent homes are run by the mother and many boys and girls from those homes will end up with problems of their own because they never had a positive father figure in their lives.

When you think about it, kids that grow up in a homosexually run home often may end up with some of the same problems as those raised in a single parent home.  Having two fathers or two mothers is not the same as having a father and a mother.  There is no replacement for the combined work of a father and mother in raising their children.
I know that not all traditional homes are perfect and produce perfect children and that some single parent homes produce great kids.  But when you look at overall trends, homes with a dad and mom have a far greater positive impact on kids and their success as adults.  Recent studies have also shown that kids from homes without a dad and mom are 82% more likely to end up living in poverty than homes with a traditional dad and mom.
Once the foundations of marriage and Christianity have been destroyed and replaced in America, our nation will no longer be America.  Those have been two of the most important foundations that have kept our nation strong for over two centuries.  Voting to legalize same-sex marriage only serves to undermine those foundations and it only takes so much undermining to make the whole thing collapse.  I fear we are rapidly nearing that point of collapse.  That’s why it is so important not allow these perverse and sinful lifestyles to be legalized.  They only serve to destroy us, not make us better.

Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies

OpEd: Jack
The article below makes the case why Sharia Law should be outlawed within the United States...it falls within the realm of sedition..it is diametrically opposed to the Constitution of the United States and any persons,group or organization who practices,adheres to or preaches Sharia Law would be guilty of sedition...as it directly attacks the principals of the US Constitution and all the by-laws attached...basically it calls for the forced overthrow of the United States and all of it's Laws~Thus installing Sharia Law and a Theocracy form of Government! This is well defined as Treason !
The Life of Muhammad:
An Inconvenient Truth  http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/History.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


By James Arlandson
Traditional Muslims who understand the Quran and the hadith believe that sharia (Islamic law) expresses the highest and best goals for all societies. It is the will of Allah.
But is Islam just in its laws that Muhammad himself practiced and invented?
This article says no for ten verifiable reasons.
Here are four points you must read, before reading this article:
First, sometimes these ten points quote the Quran or omit it; sometimes they quote the hadith (reports of Muhammad's words and actions outside of the Quran) or omit it. This is done only to keep down the length of the article. No one should be fooled into believing that these harsh and excessive laws were invented in the fevered imagination of extremists who came long after Muhammad. These harsh and excessive laws come directly from the founder of Islam in his Quran and in his example in the hadith.

Second, each of these ten reasons has a back—up article (or more) that is long and well documented with quotations and references to the Quran, the hadith, and classical legal opinions. The supporting articles also examine the historical and literary context of each Quranic verse. If the readers, especially critics, wish to challenge one or all of these ten reasons, or if they simply doubt them, they should click on the supporting articles. They will see that Muhammad himself actually laid down these excessive punishments and policies.
Third, it must be pointed out that these harsh laws are not (or should not be) imposed outside of an Islamic court of law. Careful legal hurdles must be passed before the punishments are carried out. However, even in that case, it will become clear to anyone who thinks clearly that these punishments and policies are excessive by their very nature, and excess is never just, as Aristotle taught us in his Nicomachean Ethics.
Fourth, in each of the lengthy supporting article (or articles), a Biblical view on these infractions of moral law (or sometimes civil law or personal injuries) is presented. One of the reasons we all sense that these Islamic punishments are harsh and excessive is that Christianity has also filled the globe. Even if one is not a Christian or is only a nominal Christian, he or she has breathed deeply of Christianity by virtue of laws and customs or even driving by churches. New Testament Christianity, when properly understood and followed, offers humanity dignity.
'Islam' in this article stands for Muhammad, the earliest Muslims, and classical legal scholars.
Here are the top ten reasons why sharia or Islamic law is bad for all societies.

10 top reasons Cont reading : http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html

Bring the Troops Home. U.S. Military Betrayed

OpEd: Jack
This is exactly why soldiers despise fake CIC's,Politicians and Talking heads on MSM et al who never served! Until you get your proverbial hands dirty in Combat you have no right to put those at risk to a death sentence for political gain...hiding  behind the so called political correctness nonsense..If You declare a War... turn the soldiers loose to do their job...not to act as policemen..war is hell...if you haven't the stomach to accept that then do not send soldiers to war!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



[Photo: SSG Matthew S. Sitton and wife, Sarah Sitton. SSG Matthew Sitton died in Afghanistan Aug. 2 after stepping on an IED]
As the Middle East rages in violent anti-American protests, the dirty little secret that few in Washington want to discuss is how military families have worried for years about whether or not their loved ones serving in Afghanistan and previously in Iraq would be killed by insurgents or by the bureaucracy and policies of their own government.
Intrepid journalist and author Diana West reports from an alarming letter written in June by Army Staff Sgt. Matthew S. Sitton that was sent to U.S. Rep. C.W. “Bill” Young asking for help after his commanders in Afghanistan told him to “quit whining” about orders to lead patrols twice daily without objective, “or purpose” through basically “a mine field.” As SSG Sitton wrote, “As a Brigade, we are averaging at a minimum an amputee a day from our soldiers because we are walking around aimlessly through grape rows and compounds that are littered with explosives. Not to mention that the operation tempo that every solider is on leaves little to no time for rest and refit. The moral and alertness levels on our patrol are low and it is causing casualties left and right.”
“I’m concerned about the well being of my soldiers and have tried to voice my opinion through the proper channels of my own chain of command only to be turned away and told that I need to stop complaining,” SSG Sitton continued. “It is my responsibility to take care of my soldiers …”

Two months later, on August 2, the U.S. policy COIN/nation building, a so-called counterinsurgency plan to win the hearts and minds of Afghans that SSG Sittons wrote about killed him and another U.S. soldier while on foot patrol in an IED-riddled field in Afghanistan—a death trap. SGG Sitton was 26-years old and leaves behind a wife and son.
The troops are not being sent to war to win. Take off your ideological glasses and look at the facts.

Under President George W. Bush the “catch and release” policy in Iraq, where troops were ordered to catch terrorists only to release them to appease the Iranians to supposedly discourage their nuclear enrichment program failed miserably and emboldened Iran. As the Washington Post reported in 2007, “There were no costs for the Iranians,” said one senior administration official. “They are hurting our mission in Iraq, and we were bending over backwards not to fight back.” The Bush administration changed course to the “catch or kill” program.
Under the Obama-Clinton regime, despite its obvious failure, the “catch and release” policy was embraced. As the Washington Examiner reported, “It’s as if the Taliban have more rights than us or the people of Afghanistan,” said a U.S. Army medic with 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, in Zabul province. “We have to let these guys go all the time no matter what they do, and then we find them trying to hit us again. But if they think I’ve screwed up once, then [the military will] have no problem throwing me to the wolves.”
To be clear, the failure of leadership at the expense of the troops should be directed at both the Democrats and Republicans.
The Bush administration sacrificed U.S. Marines on the altar of political-correctness when they ignored a basic American principal, “innocent until proven guilty” which they denied Marines by their silence in what became known as “Haditha.” Haditha was the highest-profile atrocity prosecution of servicemen out of the Iraq war where 24 Iraqi civilians were tragically killed after an IED explosion killed U.S. Marine LCpl Migel “T.J.” Terrazas.

Before an investigation was complete, the press and several elected U.S. government officials, including Congressman John P. Murtha (now deceased), bearing false witness, condemned and declared the Haditha Marines guilty of cold-blooded murder. Last year, the last Marine was exonerated.

Under both Bush and Obama, U.S. soldiers serve war-crime related sentences in Leavenworth prison, Kansas. Meanwhile Taliban prisoners are set free on a “pledge” declaring that they will “never support the Taliban or fight for the Taliban ever again.” A double-standard policy that shows mercy to the Taliban and no mercy for America’s military.
The Obama-Clinton administration’s policies of apology and appeasement have emboldened America’s enemies including in Afghanistan. After Islamic religious materials, for instance, that “contained extremist messages or inscriptions” were destroyed at Bagram Air Field and violent riots broke out, they apologized and reprimanded the soldiers. Meanwhile President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or Defense chief Leon Panetta never once demanded an apology from Afghanistan’s President Karzai whose Afghan forces, trained by the U.S. military, have been turning their weapons on U.S. and NATO forces in what has been called the green-on-blue/insider attacks or “epidemic murder.”
As Diana West wrote, “It is time for Generals Petraeus, McChrystal, Allen, Dempsey, Admiral Mullen and many more to face us and explain. It is also time for former President Bush and his advisors and President Obama and his advisors to answer for the failure of their misbegotten and irresponsible policy of nation-building in the Islamic world, which COIN supports.” If I may add, additionally, it is time for both administrations to explain why they sent troops to war under restrictive rules of engagement to catch terrorists only to release them and somehow expect to win.

In what would be one of SSG Sittons last written words, he wrote, “I understand that as a commander you are to follow the orders of those appointed over you however there needs to be a time where the wellness of your soldiers needs to take priority over walking around in fields for hours a day for no rhyme or reason (emphasis mine).”
Rep. Young has since reversed his stance on Afghanistan and called for the troops to be brought home, “I just think we’re killing kids that don’t need to die,” he recently said. Questions remain. How many others in Washington will show leadership and a conscience and join him? How much higher will the number of U.S. casualties’ grow, and how many more military families will suffer or be shattered before Washington and the upper echelons of the military take responsibility for their policy and leadership failures? Do they fear God or man?
As Navy Seal Marcus Luttrel, author of Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10, warned three years ago about events that occurred in 2005, “Look at me, right now in my story. Helpless, tortured, shot, blown up, my best buddies all dead, and all because we were afraid of the liberals back home, afraid to do what was necessary to save our own lives. Afraid of American civilian lawyers. I have only one piece of advice for what it’s worth: If you don’t want to get into war where things go wrong, where the wrong people sometimes get killed, where innocent people sometimes have to die, then stay the hell out of it in the first place.”

Washington’s dirty, little secret that is killing the troops and harming America’s national security must not continue to be ignored. Not to speak is to speak. Because the troops have not been allowed to win bring them home now.
Cross posted at Canadafreepress.com
Thanks to Western Free Press
Text of SSG Matthew Sitton’s letter via Tampa Bay online.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the text of the letter Matthew Sitton sent to U.S. Rep. C.W. “Bill” Young. It is unedited except for the names of two family members, which were blacked out by Young’s office for privacy.

SIR,
Hello my name is SSG Matthew Sitton. I am in the 82{+n}{+d} Airborne Division stationed in Ft. Bragg, NC. I am currently deployed with the 4th Brigade Combat Team in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. I am writing you because I am concerned for the safety of my soldiers. This is my 3{+r}{+d} combat tour to Afghanistan so I have seen the transition in Rules of Engagement and Overall Tactics over the past 6 years.
I am only writing this email because I feel myself and my soldiers are being put into unnecessary positions where harm and danger are imminent. I know the threat of casualties in war and am totally on board with sacrifice for my country, but what I don’t agree with is the chain of command making us walk through, for lack of a better term, basically a mine field on a daily basis.
I am in a platoon of 25 soldiers. We are operating at a tempo that is set for a full 35-40 man infantry platoon. We have been mandated to patrol twice daily for 2-4 hours each patrol on top of guarding our FOB and conducting routine maintenance of our equipment. There is no endstate or purpose for the patrols given to us from our higher chain of command, only that we will be out for a certain time standard. I am all for getting on the ground and fighting for my country when I know there is a desired endstate and we have clear guidance of what needs to be done. But when we are told basically to just walk around for a certain amount of time is not sitting well with me.
As a Brigade, we are averaging at a minimum an amputee a day from our soldiers because we are walking around aimlessly through grape rows and compounds that are littered with explosives. Not to mention that the operation tempo that every solider is on leaves little to no time for rest and refit. The moral and alertness levels on our patrol are low and it is causing casualties left and right.

Here is an example of how bad things have gotten. Our small FOB was flooded accidentally by a local early one morning a few days ago. He was watering his fields and the damn he had broke and water came flooding into our Living Area. Since our FOB does not have any portable bathrooms, we had to dig a hole in the ground where soldiers could use the bathroom. That also got flooded and contaminated all the water that later soaked every soldier and his gear. Instead of returning to base and cleaning up, our chain of command was so set on us meeting the brigade commanders 2 patrols a day guidance that they made us move outside the flooded FOB and conduct our patrols soaked in urine.
That is just one single instance of the unsatisfactory situations that our chain of command has put us in. At least three of my soldiers have gotten sick since that incident and taken away from our combat power because of their illness caused by unhealthy conditions.
I understand that as a commander you are to follow the orders of those appointed over you however there needs to be a time where the wellness of your soldiers needs to take priority over walking around in fields for hours a day for no rhyme or reason, but only to meet the Brigade Commanders guidance of you will conduct so many patrols for such an allotted time.

I’m concerned about the well being of my soldiers and have tried to voice my opinion through the proper channels of my own chain of command only to be turned away and told that I need to stop complaining. It is my responsibility to take care of my soldiers and there is only so much I can do with that little bit of Rank I have. My guys would fight by my side and have my back in any condition and I owe it to them to have their best interest in mind. I know they would and I certainly would appreciate it if there was something that you could do to help us out. I just want to return my guys home to their families healthy. I apologize for taking your time like this Sir, and I do appreciate what you do for us. I was told to contact you by my Grand Mother (name blacked out) who said that you had helped her son (my uncle) (name blacked) out many years ago. He also was serving in the military at the time. Thank you again for allowing soldiers like me to voice their opinion. If anything Please Pray for us over hear. God Bless
Very respectfully,
SSG Matthew Sitton

You Decide Allen West vs Patrick Murphy

A nolo contender...rofl

Dan "The 30-second spot compares what West and Democrat Patrick Murphy were doing on the night of Feb. 16, 2003. The ad zooms in on Fort Hood, Texas, where it says that that night West, then a lieutenant colonel in the Army, received orders to deploy to Iraq and was preparing to go to war. It shows photos of West in military uniform.
The ad then zooms over to South Beach, Miami, where it says Murphy was “thrown out of a club for fighting, covered in alcohol and unable to stand.” Murphy was then taken to jail after verbally assaulting a police officer, and the ad shows his mugshot, in which he’s disheveled and seems disoriented." 

http://youtu.be/R-lDL9_qDDs 

Video: Oops! Obama Says He Wants To ‘Export’ Jobs

BUSTED! Obama says at a campaign rally at Kent State University (Ohio) that he wants to export more jobs from Ohio

http://youtu.be/MhqFpjg3JIw

Video: New Ad “Bankrupt” Blasts Obama’s War On Coal

President Obama is attacking Mitt Romney because Romney supports coal miners. In 2008, Barack Obama said building a coal-powered plant will bankrupt you. President Obama wages war on coal while we lose jobs to China. We can’t afford four more years.

http://youtu.be/0TGUJD8ReRk

Why Putin Wants Obama To Win

By Andrei Tsygankov.

The 2012 U.S. presidential election presents a contrast to the 2008 election in terms of their perceptions by the Russian elite.

In 2008, then-President Dmitry Medvedev expressed a desire to work with a “modern” U.S. leader rather than one “whose eyes are turned back to the past.” He was referring to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. But influential Russian elites voiced their support for the Republican candidate, John McCain, despite McCain calling President Vladimir Putin a KGB spy who has no soul and calling to expel Russia from the Group of Eight leading industrial nations. 

Even though McCain was more critical of the Kremlin, some members of Putin’s entourage favored McCain because they believed he was more predictable than Obama. They insisted that Russia was doing well economically, whereas the United States was losing one position in the world after another. Therefore, when confronted with the U.S. threat, Russia might only get stronger and consolidate its status as a great sovereign power. The elite’s main concern is with rebuilding power and geopolitical influence. If McCain were in the White House, the thinking went, Putin would have a convenient anti-Russian bogeyman whom the Kremlin could exploit for domestic political reasons, giving it another pretext to ratchet up its anti-Americanism, increase defense expenditures and crack down on the opposition. 

Yet it seems that the Kremlin’s support for U.S. hawks is shifting. In March, Medvedev took issue with U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s characterization of Russia as the “No. 1 geopolitical foe.” He said the view “smelled of Hollywood stereotypes” and suggested that it was rooted in the Cold War.

But it wasn’t only Medvedev and his pro-Western supporters who became critical of the Republican’s views. Although President Vladimir Putin recently thanked Romney for his openness regarding the “No.1 foe” comment, he also indicated that it would be hard for the Kremlin to work with Romney as president, especially on sensitive security issues such as the missile defense system. During Putin’s interview with RT state television, he also called Obama an “honest man who really wants to change much for the better.” This comment was widely viewed as Putin’s most direct endorsement of Obama in the presidential race. 

Read More at themoscowtimes.com.

Taxpayers Spent $1.4 Billion On Obama Family Last Year, Perks Questioned In New Book

 
By Alex Pappas.

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.

In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family. 

Author Robert Keith Gray writes in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal” that Obama isn’t the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family, he argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be reined in.

Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the “total cost of the presidency,” factoring the cost of the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,” a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.”
“The most concerning thing, I think, is the use of taxpayer funds to actually abet his re-election,” Gray, who worked in the Eisenhower administration and for other Republican presidents, said in an interview with TheDC on Wednesday
Read More at the Daily Caller.

America’s Troops Betrayed

By Marinka Peschmann 

As the Middle East rages in violent anti-American protests, the dirty little secret that few in Washington want to discuss is how military families have worried for years about whether their loved ones serving in Afghanistan (and previously in Iraq) would be killed by insurgents or by the bureaucracy and policies of their own government.
Intrepid journalist and author Diana West reports from an alarming letter written in June by Army Staff Sgt. Matthew S. Sitton that was sent to U.S. Rep. C.W. “Bill” Young asking for help after his commanders in Afghanistan told him to “quit whining” about orders to lead patrols twice daily without objective “or purpose” through, basically, “a mine field.” As SSG Sitton wrote, “As a Brigade, we are averaging at a minimum an amputee a day from our soldiers because we are walking around aimlessly through grape rows and compounds that are littered with explosives. Not to mention that the operation tempo that every solider is on leaves little to no time for rest and refit. The moral and alertness levels on our patrol are low and it is causing casualties left and right.”
 
“I’m concerned about the well being of my soldiers and have tried to voice my opinion through the proper channels of my own chain of command only to be turned away and told that I need to stop complaining,” SSG Sitton continued. “It is my responsibility to take care of my soldiers …”
Two months later, on August 2, the U.S. policy COIN/nation building, a so-called counterinsurgency plan to win the hearts and minds of Afghans that SSG Sittons wrote about, killed him and another U.S. soldier while on foot patrol in an IED-riddled field in Afghanistan—a death trap. SGG Sitton was 26-years old and leaves behind a wife and son.

The troops are not being sent to war to win. Take off your ideological glasses, and look at the facts.
Under President George W. Bush, the “catch and release” policy in Iraq, where troops were ordered to catch terrorists only to release them to appease the Iranians to supposedly discourage their nuclear enrichment program, failed miserably and emboldened Iran. As the Washington Post reported in 2007, “There were no costs for the Iranians,” said one senior administration official. “They are hurting our mission in Iraq, and we were bending over backwards not to fight back.” The Bush administration changed course to the “catch or kill” program.
Under the Obama-Clinton regime, despite its obvious failure, the “catch and release” policy was embraced. As the Washington Examiner reported, “It’s as if the Taliban have more rights than us or the people of Afghanistan,” said a U.S. Army medic with 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, in Zabul province. “We have to let these guys go all the time no matter what they do, and then we find them trying to hit us again. But if they think I’ve screwed up once, then [the military will] have no problem throwing me to the wolves.”
To be clear, the failure of leadership at the expense of the troops should be directed at both the Democrats and Republicans.
The Bush administration sacrificed U.S. Marines on the altar of “political correctness” when they ignored a basic American principle, “innocent until proven guilty”, which they denied Marines by their silence in what became known as “Haditha.” Haditha was the highest-profile atrocity prosecution of servicemen out of the Iraq war where 24 Iraqi civilians were tragically killed after an IED explosion killed U.S. Marine LCpl Migel “T.J.” Terrazas.
Before an investigation was complete, the press and several elected U.S. government officials, including Congressman John P. Murtha (now deceased), bearing false witness, condemned and declared the Haditha Marines guilty of cold-blooded murder. Last year, the last Marine was exonerated.

Under both Bush and Obama, U.S. soldiers serve war-crime-related sentences in Leavenworth prison in Kansas. Meanwhile, Taliban prisoners are set free on a “pledge” declaring that they will “never support the Taliban or fight for the Taliban ever again.” It is a double-standard policy that shows mercy to the Taliban and no mercy for America’s military.
The Obama-Clinton administration’s policies of apology and appeasement have emboldened America’s enemies, including those in Afghanistan. After Islamic religious materials, for instance, that “contained extremist messages or inscriptions” were destroyed at Bagram Air Field and violent riots broke out, they apologized and reprimanded the soldiers. Meanwhile, President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, or Defense chief Leon Panetta never once demanded an apology from Afghanistan’s President Karzai, whose Afghan forces, trained by the U.S. military, have been turning their weapons on U.S. and NATO forces in what has been called the green-on-blue/insider attacks or “epidemic murder.”
As Diana West wrote, “It is time for Generals Petraeus, McChrystal, Allen, Dempsey, Admiral Mullen and many more to face us and explain. It is also time for former President Bush and his advisors and President Obama and his advisors to answer for the failure of their misbegotten and irresponsible policy of nation-building in the Islamic world, which COIN supports.” If I may add, it is time for both administrations to explain why they sent troops to war under restrictive rules of engagement to catch terrorists, only to release them and somehow expect to win.
In what would probably be SSG Sitton’s last written words, he wrote: “I understand that as a commander you are to follow the orders of those appointed over you however there needs to be a time where the wellness of your soldiers needs to take priority over walking around in fields for hours a day for no rhyme or reason (emphasis mine).”

Rep. Young has since reversed his stance on Afghanistan and called for the troops to be brought home; “I just think we’re killing kids that don’t need to die,” he recently said. Questions remain. How many others in Washington will show leadership and a conscience and join him? How much higher will the number of U.S. casualties’ grow, and how many more military families will suffer or be shattered before Washington and the upper echelons of the military take responsibility for their policy and leadership failures? Do they fear God or man?
As Navy Seal Marcus Luttrel, author of Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10, warned three years ago about events that occurred in 2005: “Look at me, right now in my story. Helpless, tortured, shot, blown up, my best buddies all dead, and all because we were afraid of the liberals back home, afraid to do what was necessary to save our own lives. Afraid of American civilian lawyers. I have only one piece of advice for what it’s worth: If you don’t want to get into war where things go wrong, where the wrong people sometimes get killed, where innocent people sometimes have to die, then stay the hell out of it in the first place.”
Washington’s dirty, little secret that is killing the troops and harming America’s national security must not continue to be ignored. Not to speak is to speak. Because the troops have not been allowed to win, bring them home now.
(Read the full text of SSG Sitton’s letter.)

Decapitations called solution for criticism of Islam

by Bob Unruh 


A jihadi writer who has praised the murderer of a Dutch filmmaker is offering a suggestion to cut down on the criticism of Islam around the globe: Behead the critics and post their heads along roads.
Oh, and post a sign that says, “This is the punishment of those who insult our prophet.”
The report comes from the Jihad and Terrorism Threat Monitor, a unit of the Middle East Media Research Center. 

The organization, which monitors Middle East media, said the comments were made by Muhib Ru’yat al-Rahman, a senior writer of a leading jihadi forum called Shumoukh al-Islam.
He suggested that Muslims living in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and the U.S. kill Westerners who criticize Islam and display their decapitated heads along roads.
“While expressing respect for those calling to boycott European and American products over the release of the film ‘Innocence of Muslims,’ which negatively depicts Muhammad, Muhib insists that the best way to deter people from insulting Muhammad and his wives is to implement his proposal,” the terror monitor report said.
The report said it was in a posting called “Allah Willing, This Is How We Will Avenge Our Prophet Against Those Insulting Him.”
“The writer praised Dutch-Moroccan Muslim Muhammad Bouyeri, who killed Dutch film-maker Theo Van Gogh in 2004 over the latter’s production of ‘Submission,’ a film criticizing Islam’s treatment of women. Dozens of forum members praised the post, expressing their agreement with the writer’s suggestions,” the terror survey said.

“One member, using the handle ‘Abdul Khaleq 20,’ posted two recently published YouTube links featuring Muslims protesting ‘Innocence of Muslims’ in Amsterdam, while chanting anti-American slogans and bearing images of slain al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, radical Yemeni-American cleric Anwar Al-’Awlaki, and Muhammad Bouyeri,” the report said.
“Those are his [Bouyeri's] admirers in Amsterdam. They are carrying images of the martyred Sheikh Osama and Sheikh Anwar, and also images of brother Muhammad, may Allah release you from prison, Oh Muhammad Bouyeri,” the forum participant, “Abdul Khaleq 20,” wrote.Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs noted the report and simply said, “More tolerance and respect from savages demanding tolerance, respect and submission.”

Geller has waged a battle in New York, Washington and other cities to post a pro-Israel ad, after numerous pro-Palestinian ads already have appeared.
Just this week, a court hearing is set on her purchase of ad space in the Washington metro transit system, and her ads in New York went up after a judge ruled the city could not censor the message.
That message is “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”
Her posters in New York immediately were vandalized, and she said it proved her point about savagery.
The suggestion for beheadings recalls the recent reports from WND that Muslims in the Middle East are returning to crucifixions as a method of punishment.
WND had confirmed a Sky News Arabia report of the crucifixion of dissidents in Egypt.
Then a report from Lebanon Today translated into English, said the Yemeni jihadist group Ansar al-Shariah took control of the Azzan area of Yemen and imposed Islamic law, or Shariah.
In the process, the group crucified three men, accusing them of being agents for the U.S. The executions reportedly took place several months ago.
Former PLO operative turned terrorism analyst Walid Shoebat says the inscription in the photo of one of the victims reads, “He was crucified for three days in accordance to Shariah.”
Shoebat says Lebanon Today reported the group carried out the Shariah-prescribed penalties, explaining the multiple executions were retribution for passing information to U.S. forces to carry out attacks by pilot-less drones.

According to Shoebat’s translation, the report said:
“One they nicknamed ‘Captain’ was executed by crucifixion for three days at the entrance to the city of Jaar in the Abyan province, to be viewed by passersby entering and leaving the city.
“Two Saudis and a Yemeni were also executed by the sword at dawn at the hands of Ansar al-Shariah, and [the terrorists] absolved [a] fourth defendant from execution for his young age..
“A leader in Ansar al-Islam claimed that these who were executed belong to the province of Marib, [and were executed] for planting trackers on cars that belong to al-Qaida leaders to be targeted by the drones.”
According to Shoebat, the article said an analyst in the region claimed the crucifixions are “something new.”

When Geller’s message appeared, according to the New York Post, a self-described “liberal Muslim,” Mona Eltahawy, “strolled up to one of the signs at the crowded 1/2/3 train mezzanine at the Times Square station and sprayed pink paint on the ad.”
The report said a Manhattan mother, Pamela Hall, rushed to stop Eltahawy, who insisted she had a right to deface the message.
“I think this is freedom of expression, just as (the ad) is freedom of expression,” Eltahawy said.
She was arrested and accused of creating graffiti, possessing a graffiti instrument and criminal mischief.
Tim Graham of Media Research Center pointed out that Eltahawy has appeared periodically on NBC, MSNBC and CNN. He noted that in CNN’s reporting on the confrontation, Eltahawy was identified only as an “activist.”
Geller, who noted the latest developments at her blog, Atlas Shrugs, said the destruction actually validates the message to oppose jihad and savagery.
“The defacement is a metaphor for the entire national conversation on these issues. Hundreds and hundreds of anti-Israel posters ran all over the country. Not one was defaced,” she said.
However, Geller said: “One anti-jihad poster goes up, and it’s defaced within an hour, while its creator faces defamation, smears and libel. Mona Eltahawy, a Muslim writer who was herself assaulted in Egypt by people she called ‘beasts’ took a can of spray paint to our ad and assaulted a pro-freedom blogger, Pamela Hall, who tried to stop her.”

http://youtu.be/qVw1XRT48iQ




The video “Innocence of Muslims” apparently is only a 14-minute project on Youtube that Muslims say insults Muhammad. Protesters around the globe have screamed about it while threatening the U.S.
Even the White House, despite evidence that an attack in Libya that killed four Americans including the ambassador was terror-related, has blamed the violence on the video.

Attempted robbery that almost became a race riot

 (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.)
 EDITOR’S NOTE: The links in the following report may contain offensive language.

by Colin Flaherty 


It all began with an attempted robbery.
Tommy Burke had just left a local watering hole in the Trolley Square neighborhood of Wilmington, Del.
Burke makes bird-house reproductions of Wilmington estate homes that get national attention. This self-professed liberal calls himself a 60-year-old hippy.
Walking home, he passed through a crowd of 40 black people – mostly teenagers – milling around outside of a party. Thirty yards later, he found himself followed, then surrounded by five people from that group.
“They said give me your f—— money,” he said. “And they threatened to beat me up. They said I was just a guy who drank too much and I couldn’t fight back. I took off my glasses, put my false teeth in my pocket and told them that was not going to happen.”
Much to their surprise – and his – he punched one of his robbers. After a few more blows were exchanged, the five teenagers ran back in the direction of the party. All of Tommy Burke’s cash and valuables were intact. He did suffer injuries to his mouth that will require dental surgery.
See the Big List of black mob violence. 


“These two women from the party – I think they were mothers – begged me not to call the police. I told them I just got mugged, of course I was going to call the police.”
And he did. Police got the call at 11:58 p.m., police records show. This timeline is important, as we shall soon see.
Police got there quickly – within five minutes, but now after the midnight curfew.
Despite the curfew, many people from the party were loitering in and wandering through adjacent neighborhoods. Police called for backup and within 10 minutes a police van was on the scene.
Soon, 24 curfew violators were on their way to a nearby YMCA – a safe haven where parents could pick up their children without going to jail or getting a record.

After a bit of questioning, they were released. No arrests were made. Everyone went home.
But Chandra Pitts, the head of One Village Alliance, a social service agency funded by the United Way whose mission is to mentor children in the city of 65,000, weaves a totally different story: A tale of conspiracy, racism, police brutality, official deception, illegal questioning and lots of other “horrific” and “disgusting” things.
The city is one with problems: Parenting magazine named Wilmington the “dangerous city in America.” Just a few hours before this incident, four people were shot. One died.
Pitt’s version ended up on dozens of websites, Facebook pages, answering machines, and email inboxes – many before dawn the following day. Many vowed to take the story national – and make it about race.
This is the version that could have started a riot, observed people in and out of the police department. Even John Flaherty (Editor’s note: John is the author’s brother), the former head of Common Cause in Delaware who co-hosts with the author a radio show at WDEL in Wilmington, figured it out:
“What she did was like the people stirring up the riots in Egypt and Libya,” said John Flaherty. “Just say anything without even caring if it is true. That is how riots start.”
Over the next several days, even after learning what really happened, Pitts repeated her story several times.
Here’s her story. Pitts wrote on her Facebook page:

“While Wilmington slept More than 30 innocent children as young as 10 and 12 years old were the victims of the most horrific and disgusting display of bigotry and entrapment in a night that they will remember for the rest of their lives. Parents stood by in outrage but helpless against a force of more than 20 police officers during what was, by the children’s account, a well orchestrated, premeditated attack as the plan was carried out by the Wilmington Police Department, the fully staffed Walnut Street YMCA and the Wilmington Jaycees…. How could this seemingly respected community collaborative be a part of such an elaborate plan that resulted in the illegal entrapment, interrogation and psychological trauma of our children???”
Let’s look:
Pitts dropped off her “brilliant” 15-year old, private-school child at the party at 9 p.m.
“There was a back to school party,” Pitts told the delawarehiphop.com. “They were giving away book bags and celebrating their last weekend before they had to go back to school.”
Not true.
There were no book bags. A flyer for the party billed it as “West Side is Da Best Side teen party,” produced by “BadBoy Allan.” Admission, $10.
The flyer also cryptically stated “F— DJ Ty and his busted speakers.”
Pitts also claimed the party was sponsored by the Jaycees.

Not true.
It was held in their building, but not a Jaycee event, said a former president of the club.
Pitt also said Wilmington police were working security at the party.
Not true.
No police – on duty or off – were present at the party, said Wilmington Police Chief Michael Szczerba.
“We dropped our children off in broad daylight on a beautiful Saturday evening at 7 p.m.”
Not true: She dropped her child off at 9 p.m. So she said. She also said many of the children walked there.
At some point Pitt learned of the attempted robbery. She said a policeman said it happened in “some point in history not a set time but at some point in history, before the party ever began.”
Not true on either count.
The attempted robbery on Burke was outside the party, during the party, by “children” from the party, authorities suspected. Police never told her anything different.

Pitts: “Those doors did not open to let those children out into the streets to walk home until 12 midnight.”
Not true.
Burke and others say more than 20 people from the party were at a nearby 7-11 and adjacent neighborhoods before the party ended at midnight. The chief of police said on the radio interview several of the neighbors – some from blocks away – dialed 911 complaining about the noise and mayhem.
Pitts also contradicts herself: At one point saying the neighborhood was predominately white, then saying that many of the black children lived close enough to walk home.
Along with the website Delawarehiphop.com, Pitt told a conspiracy theory that was quickly debunked, but which did not prevent her from repeating it to reporters and to the city council.
The whole thing was a “sting operation,” Pitts said, to illegally question black people about a robbery in that white neighborhood. The police were in on it. So were the Jaycees. So was the YMCA.
Pitts said the police should have been questioning white people at a nearby bar.
“It was an absolute setup and very likely a sting operation from the very beginning,” Pitts said. And once the children were removed to the safe haven center at the YMCA, Pitts claimed an officer confessed as much to her.

“That is when the cat got leaked out of the bag from the officer’s own mouth to confirm that this in fact was a sting operation to question all of these black children illegally about a robbery that took place in a predominantly white residential area.”
At this point, Pitts claimed that several parents were using their smart phones to video tape the encounter. But Pitts did not get this “confession” on tape.
Thirty-seven hours after the party ended, my brother and I – on a radio show we host at WDEL in Wilmington – asked Pitts about many of the things she said. Why did you compare to the police to the Klu Klux Klan? And why did you try and make a racial incident out of it?
She denied comparing local police to the KKK. She said she was misquoted.
Back to the audio tape from delawarehiphop.com. Pitts reminded the interviewer of the time when:
“Three young students were murdered by the Klu Klux Klan. When police officers pull their car over. Detained them. They didn’t charge them with the crime. They never made an arrest. They detained them and let them out in wee hours of the morning (before they were killed) just like our children were released to waiting paddy wagon and police vehicle and dogs.”
In case you are one of those people who like playing the racial grievance game, “paddy wagon” is a racially offensive term.

Delawarehiphop.com figured it all out:
“Because the officers present were mainly Caucasian and the children involved were African-American and Hispanic and because the incident occurred in a predominantly white neighborhood, a racial component was immediately inferred by the Pitts and families present.
“To further their suspicions, a conflicting reason for the arrests emerged when a different officer was asked what the purpose was and reportedly, the second officer mentioned that someone had gotten robbed in the area but did not make it clear when. Pitts is one of several present who feel the children were possibly lured to the party and that it was a racially motivated and calculated sting.”
The interview continues with allegations of abuse, and illegal questioning and racist behavior. The police were “horrific” and “harassing our children in the most disgusting way possible,” Pitts said.
Even John Flaherty, a “liberal,” figured it out: “What were 10-year-old kids doing at a teen party at midnight?” he asked.
The children left the YMCA safe haven with a few flyers describing the group’s activities for youth. Pitts got mad at that too. “How dare they?” tell the children about after school programs, Pitts said.
The audio diatribe is 23 minutes.
Also at Delawarehiphop.com is a videotape shot in the back of the police wagon by Pitts’ son. The 30-second film is full of racial obscenities and vulgarities that make it impossible to play even a brief cut on a radio show.

Tommy Burke saw the video too. He said one of the people in that video is one of the people who attacked him.
Even so, Delawarehiphop promised to take the story national. It didn’t work. Saeed Shabazz, a reporter for the Final Call – the Nation of Islam’s newspaper – didn’t buy it. He checked it out and found the story was not true, he said on the air at WDEL.
In the end, there were too many questions. Too many phony answers. “Ms. Pitts runs an organization that is supposed to teach children the correct path,” said a poster to Delawareonline.com. “I think I understand why things are out of hand.”
See the Big List of black mob violence.

Obama's top faith adviser blasts anti-jihad ad

by: Bob Unruh

It took only hours after the posting of a pro-Israel slogan in New York City for opponents to launch a violent spray-paint attack against the message and for a religious adviser to Barack Obama to use the conflict to try to raise money for his own campaign.
At the center of the ruckus is an attempt by New York transit authorities to censor the message “In Any War Between the Civilized Man and the Savage, Support the Civilized Man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”

The message, which authorities call “demeaning,” is being promoted by the American Freedom Defense Initiative and its executive directors Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. Lawyers with the American Freedom Law Center have been working with them to overcome anti-Israel activism that has deterred and delayed the posting of the ads.
Just days ago, WND reported that the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority halted a plan to post the ads this week, expressing concern about “situations happening around the world” and the “security and safety” of passengers. A court hearing has been scheduled.
In New York City, the ads were posted only after a federal judge struck down the transit agency’s policies as a violation of the First Amendment.
However, according to the New York Post, a self-described “liberal Muslim,” Mona Eltahawy, “strolled up to one of the signs at the crowded 1/2/3 train mezzanine at the Times Square station and sprayed pink paint on the ad.”
The report said a Manhattan mother, Pamela Hall, rushed to stop Eltahawy, who insisted she had a right to deface the message.

“I think this is freedom of expression, just as (the ad) is freedom of expression,” Eltahawy said.
She was arrested and accused of creating graffiti, possessing a graffiti instrument and criminal mischief.
Tim Graham of Media Research Center pointed out that Eltahawy has appeared periodically on NBC, MSNBC and CNN. He noted that in CNN’s reporting on the confrontation, Eltahawy was identified only as an “activist.”
Geller, who noted the latest developments at her blog, Atlas Shrugs, said the destruction actually validates the message to oppose jihad and savagery.
“The defacement is a metaphor for the entire national conversation on these issues. Hundreds and hundreds of anti-Israel posters ran all over the country. Not one was defaced,” she said.

However, Geller said: “One anti-jihad poster goes up, and it’s defaced within an hour, while its creator faces defamation, smears and libel. Mona Eltahawy, a Muslim writer who was herself assaulted in Egypt by people she called ‘beasts’ took a can of spray paint to our ad and assaulted a pro-freedom blogger, Pamela Hall, who tried to stop her.”
Geller continued: “Islamic supremacists and leftist thugs criminally defaced these ads within an hour. This is a physical manifestation of the way the entire conversation, or lack thereof, always goes: anyone who speaks about jihad and Shariah is attacked, defamed, destroyed – just like these ads. This is exactly what’s happening in the media regarding jihad coverage in general.
“Anti-American, anti-Israel, pro-Shariah hate is all over the airwaves, but anyone who dares to speak the truth about Islam and jihad in the media is immediately smeared and defamed. You can’t have this conversation in the media, any more than I can present these pro-Israel ads, and receive any semblance of fair treatment,” she said.

Geller also reported the multiple emails and other communications from critics who advocated more violence against the ads and her.
“Isn’t it illegal to exhort people to commit a crime?” she questioned.
The second line of opposition to the anti-jihad ads was announced by Sojourners, the publication led by Rev. Jim Wallis, one of the Obama’s top religious advisers.
His group announced “Christians across the country are standing up to counter anti-Muslim ads” and launched a fundraising drive to support a “Love Your Muslim Neighbor” ad campaign in New York.
In a statement, Wallis said: “The second of The Ten Commandments is ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ It didn’t come with stipulations. It didn’t come with extra addendums, with added qualifiers. Christians around the world need to put that into action as often as we can, especially where we see hatred like this.”
Actually, the second of the Ten Commandments is: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”
“Love your neighbor” was the second commandment mentioned by Jesus when his disciples asked him which was the most important. The first was to the effect, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind.”

Sojourners later amended the organization’s statement to remove the reference to the second commandment.
The Wallis statement said: “Everyone – regardless of race, religion, or creed – deserves to feel welcomed and safe when riding public transit in America. With tensions across the world at an all-time high, the Christian community is doing what it can to promote non-violence in their own backyard, and this addition of subway ads to an ongoing billboard campaign only reinforces the Christian call to peace.”
The New York Times describes Sojourners as “a left-leaning evangelical organization.”
Geller told WND it’s “a pity that Rev. Jim Wallis didn’t get his group together to stand up when Christians, Hindus and so many others were facing vicious persecution in Muslim countries.”
“Where is Sojourners when Christians are victimized by jihad? Wallis is standing up for those who oppress and kill Christians,” Geller said.
The anti-jihad ad earlier drew opposition on the West Coast, where San Francisco transit officials accompanied it with a disclaimer.
American Freedom Law Center co-founder David Yerushalmi pointed out that under the First Amendment, speech cannot be punished or banned “simply because it might offend a hostile mob.”
The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s speech restriction, he said, is based on the perceived negative response that the American Freedom Defense Initiative’s message might receive from certain viewers based on its content and viewpoint.

“However, a viewer’s reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation,” he argued. “This is known as a ‘heckler’s veto,’ which is impermissible under the First Amendment.”

Super accurate poll: This man will win presidency

 OpEd:Jack
ROFL all I can say is 'The plane boss~the plane'  "Fantasy Island" All this proves is Obama supporters have way too much time on their hands...as well as a low income ratio ...not to mention poor taste in coffee! Maybe Romney supporters buy the Obama cups to use for emergency pit stops on the road! dunno
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by Joe Kovacs 


Here’s something to percolate your politics.
A poll based on coffee cups that has been completely accurate since it began in 2000 suggests Barack Obama will defeat Mitt Romney in this year’s race for president.
The 7-Eleven convenience-store chain is again conducting its survey it calls “unabashedly unofficial and unscientific,” with customers voting by selecting specially marked coffee cups, blue for Obama and red for Romney. Regular non-partisan cups are available for those who don’t want to trumpet their political affiliation.
Continuous results are displayed on a special website the company has posted online, and the ongoing tally for each state can be seen by clicking on that state.
As of Wednesday, Sept. 26, the president holds a commanding 16 percent lead in the popular vote, collecting 58 percent of cups compared to 42 percent for the former Massachusetts governor.
And the news isn’t better for Romney when it comes to an electoral-style map, as he holds a lead in only four states: Idaho, New Hampshire, South Carolina and West Virginia. North Carolina appears to be tied at this point.



7-Eleven's interactive election map shows Barack Obama with a large lead.

The chain says about 7 million customers visit its stores each day.
“Around 1 million of those purchase a cup of 7-Eleven coffee,” said president and CEO Joe DePinto.
“While we have never billed 7-Election as scientific or statistically valid, it is astounding just how accurate this simple count-the-cups poll has been – election after election. We have had a lot of fun with it, and I hope we have encouraged people how important it is to vote in the real election.”
In 2008, 7-Eleven voters picked Obama as the winner by a 52 to 46 percent margin over John McCain. That was extremely close to the actual result which had Obama winning 52.9 to 45.7. Even the professional Gallup polltakers were not as prescient as the coffee drinkers, as Gallup’s final prediction was 55 to 45 in favor of Obama.
In 2004, 7-Eleven voters chose George W. Bush over John Kerry 51 to 49 percent, again hauntingly close to the actual result of 50.7 to 48.3.
In 2000, the coffee-cups prediction accurately chose Bush over Al Gore by one percentage point. Bush won the race in the Electoral College, though Gore won the actual popular vote that year by a razor-thin 48.4 to 47.9 percent margin.
Lisa Arthur of Forbes magazine reports, “It’s interesting to note that since this campaign was first tried during the presidential election in 2000, 7-Eleven ‘coffee-cup voters’ have successfully predicted the winner in each presidential election, which means the 7-Election has a better track record than some well-known statistically valid polls.”
She adds the accuracy factor “is likely driving more people to buy coffee so they can register their preference long before Election Day on November 6.”

What do you make of 7-Eleven poll on election race?

• Let's hope the poll's accuracy trend is broken in 2012 (42%, 59 Votes)
• Romney will win, irrespective of what the 7-Eleven poll says (34%, 48 Votes)
• It's not surprising. 7-Elevens are abundant in urban areas where Obama finds his strength (11%, 15 Votes)
• I wouldn't put it past Obama to have his minions buy these coffee cups to inflate the polls (9%, 12 Votes)
• The 'scientific' polls are being shown to be phony, so why would I believe coffee cups? (4%, 5 Votes)
• Other (1%, 2 Votes)
• I hope it is a good indicator of the election outcome because I want Obama to win (0%, 0 Votes)
• It shows every-day people support Obama (0%, 0 Votes)
• I'm an Obama supporter, and the poll's past accuracy makes me feel encouraged (0%, 0 Votes)

Total Voters: 141

Vote

Bureaucrats to become businessmen?

by Eric Rauch 
 

Washington State is beginning to realize that “broke” actually means broke, as in, “out of money.” Governor Christine Gregoire is considering cost-saving steps, including being the first state in the country to cut state park funding to zero. Of course, the $94 million savings would be a drop in the bucket for a state that is $3 billion in the red, but at least it is a move in the right direction.
What this means—according to Don Hoch, the Director of Washington State Parks—is that the state parks actually need to begin running like businesses. Hoch said: “We’ve started marketing. We have to develop a new skill set that we’ve never had to develop before. We were never in the competition business.” Yeah, Don, we know. That’s why your state is $3 billion in the hole. No business on earth can run a deficit of $3 billion and remain in business. That loophole is uniquely reserved for government bureaucracies.

Notice that Hoch openly admits that they don’t even possess a business-minded skill set. He says they were “never in the competition business” before. Yet this didn’t prevent them from finding ways to spend $94 million a year. This is the government bureaucracy mindset in action. Budgets are approved with absolutely no concept of where the money will come from (other than higher taxes, of course). Thousands of employees are paid, equipment is purchased to keep an entire industry afloat that the public really doesn’t value. “Save the Earth” types will certainly be up at arms about losing their “free” state park privileges, but will they be upset enough to put their dollars where their indignation is? Probably not.

I would be the first to admit that I generally like the idea of state parks, but I also admit that I don’t use them very often. Would I be willing to pay more each time I visit, if I knew that my tax dollars weren’t being used to fund them? Yes. Would I use the state parks more often (therefore paying to use them more often) if there was a concentrated marketing and activity concentrated marketing and activity program in place that was designed to increase attendance and revenue? Probably. Part of the problem with state parks in the first place is that most people tend to forget about them for the very reason that they are on the government dole and get their funding regardless of their ability to sustain themselves. State parks need a reality check just like the rest of the bloated government bureaucracies attached to the tax money umbilical cord. Cutting spending is never fun or painless, but it is necessary nevertheless.Labor costs for the Washington State Park system account for 85% of its annual budget. This is way out of whack for what a private business could sustain. This will need to change immediately if the Washington State Parks plan on making their system pay for itself. Paul Guppy of the Washington State Policy Center said: “State government is pretty bad at advertising the experience you can have at public parks, but a private company would have much more incentive to broaden their appeal to a wider public to encourage more people to come.” Indeed. In reality, the question should have been asked years ago why the state parks never were required to come up with ways to increase attendance and revenue.

But this is all “water under the state-funded bridge.” This new policy under consideration in Washington State should also be considered by the rest of the 49 states. And once the state parks are funded privately, they will have a model to show that it can, and must, be done to all the other government bureaucracies.

Big Brother is Watching…and Listening

by Philip Hodges 
 
TrapWire is a company that uses an intelligence gathering software that is designed to analyze human behavior and to predict and prevent terrorist attacks based on behavior patterns. Stratfor (Strategic Forecasting, Inc.) is another company that specializes in intelligence through sophisticated networks of surveillance cameras positioned in big cities throughout the U.S. and abroad. Stratfor and TrapWire have allegedly teamed up in delivering a “product” that not only watches us with fancy cameras but can also analyze the way we walk and our facial expressions to determine whether or not we might commit a terrorist attack. According to e-mails intercepted by Wikileaks, TrapWire technology is being implemented as an international surveillance system to be used by big city law enforcement agencies in the U.S. The NYPD, the White House and other places around the world like Scotland Yard and the Canadian Royal Mounted Police are clients already.
Voice Grid Nation is another surveillance program also being used by U.S. law enforcement that operates not by seeing, but hearing. This is Russian technology brought to the U.S. by the Russia Speech Technology Center. Russia Today reports:

When authorities intercept a call they’ve deemed ‘hinky’, the recording is entered into the VoiceGrid program, which (probably) buzzes and whirrs and spits out a match. In five seconds, the program can scan through 10,000 voices, and it only needs 3 seconds for speech analysis. All that, combined with 100 simultaneous searches and the storage capacity of 2 million samples, gives SpeechPro, as the company is known in the US, the right to claim a 90% success rate.

So, we have an international surveillance system being implemented with software that will detect “suspicious” behavior patterns, and now we have Russian technology being used to build up a database of our voices, similar the FBI’s billion-dollar facial recognition program that it’s rolling out. Soon, I’m sure they’ll have technology that knows how each of us smells.

These subjects are usually kept under wraps by the mainstream media. But people are finding out about these Big Brother programs, and they’re not liking them. Referring to a Monmouth University poll that addressed Americans’ opinion of surveillance drones, the Government Accountability Office noted:

Concerns include the potential for increased amounts of government surveillance using technologies placed on UAS [Unmanned Aircraft Systems], the collection and use of such data, and potential violations of constitutional Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Additionally, a June 2012 poll conducted by Monmouth University reported that 42 percent of those sampled were very concerned about their own privacy if U.S. law enforcement started using UAS with high tech cameras, while 15 percent said they were not at all concerned.

15% don’t seem to care about the growing trend toward an Orwellian surveillance state. These 15% are naive to put so much trust in their government to keep them safe. Of course, they’d probably be happy to live in a prison cell knowing that at least they’re secure.

 

Supremes docket income tax challenge

by: Bob Unruh

The government calls those who argue the income tax has no legal foundation “tax protesters” and labels their arguments “frivolous.” And usually judges toss their arguments out of court, assess them court costs on top of taxes, interest and penalties, and sometimes even threaten them if they file further cases.
But now the U.S. Supreme Court – the nine judges who sit on the bench in Washington by virtue of their selection by presidents and confirmation by the U.S. Senate – has docketed exactly that type of case.

The results? Who knows, considering the radical arguments offered by the pro se plaintiff, Jeffrey Thomas Maehr, a Colorado chiropractor who has been involved in a number of business ventures, including PureHealthSystems.com.
Among Maehr’s contentions is that while the government has the legal authority to tax, the Internal Revenue Service has used “unlawful, unconstitutional, unfair and biased” manipulations to assess income taxes on that which is not income – essentially salaries and wages.
Basing his argument on 10 years’ worth of research into tax law, he concludes that salaries and wages are the result of the mutual agreement among participants to exchange labor for money – and that’s not income.
Income, he said, is the increased value of an asset, such as interest on money in a bank account, which can be subjected to income tax.
He told WND his arguments repeatedly have been tossed from courthouses – in his case, nine times over the years – and he’s anxious to see what the Supreme Court justices may decide.
In his petition to the court, he said, “The gravity of these fundamental law questions have never been properly adjudicated, and the evidence in fact available proves without a doubt that the taxation scheme being implemented against petitioner, and all Americans, is fundamentally and profoundly unlawful, unconstitutional, unfair and biased, and is evidence of ongoing, willful, deliberate, and unconscionable fraud.”

WND contacted the office of the U.S. Solicitor General, listed on the Supreme Court website as the defense counsel for the IRS, and office staff who answered the phone refused to comment. WND was transferred to an office for the U.S. attorney general, where officials also declined to comment.
Maehr says information about the case is at the Foundation for Truth in Law.
Officials with the Supreme Court said while the case has been docketed, and a response from the IRS already has been scheduled, the justices still must hold a conference on the case to determine whether, in fact, they will review the arguments.
Maehr wrote in his petition for judicial review that he’s been the victim of administrative bludgeoning used by the IRS to quell citizens with objections as well as questions.
“Petitioner was denied due process, over and over again. Petitioner’s evidence was dismissed without consideration. Petitioner was unlawfully assessed outside lawful means. Petitioner’s evidence that ‘income’ is not wages or payment for labor is clearly supported by court precedent. Petition was mistreated, and the courts unlawfully ruled without regard to respondent’s standing to be acting against him,” he said.

“Respondent is taxing outside clear constitutional parameters, presumptively labeling he, and all Americans as ‘taxpayers,’ apart from any mechanism of law. Respondent is wantonly promoting the mandatory filing of the 1040 form which is clearly in violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Respondent has not produced the law with the IR Code which makes petitioner or any American ‘personally’ liable for filing the 1040 form, let alone other ‘requirements.’”
A copy of a ruling from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, before judges Michael Murphy, Bobby Baldock and Harris Hartz, was included in Maehr’s filing. It appears to support Maehr’s argument, because the judges, without responding to his questions and challenges to the constitutionality of the issue, labeled the claims “frivolous” and claimed Maehr’s petition “contains no valid challenges.”
Maehr’s arguments cite a wide range of historical court and congressional statements regarding taxes. For example, Blacks Law Dictionary calls income tax “a tax on the yearly profits arising from property, professions, trades and offices.”
Maehr argues wages are not “profits”; they are simply the result of an exchange of labor for money. Pointing out that businesses routinely pay taxes on “profits,” he noted taxes are not assessed on the expenses of the business.



Simply, the labor of an individual is the “expense” required to obtain the money, so it is not “profit.” To determine otherwise would be to subject corporations such as Wal-Mart to “income taxes” on 100 percent of their cash register receipts, he argues.
The court itself said an 1883 case, “It has been well said that, the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable.”
In 1969, the court ruled: “Whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th amendment became effective. … If there is no gain, there is no income. … [Income] is not synonymous with receipts.”
And a 1946 case stated, “Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit.”
“The elements of this case involve respondent/IRS administrative functions being implemented under color of law,” Maehr wrote. “In 2003, petitioner began requesting answers to constitutional questions regarding respondent’s positions in application of its taxation process, but which, since 2003, have been completely ignored and labeled as ‘frivolous’ and he was told that if he wanted any answers, it would have to be found ‘in the courts.’

“The essential, foundational, original intent of Congress regarding ‘income’ taxation and tax authority has been slowly perverted over the decades with actions under color of law,” Maehr continued. “The original intent was known long ago, and supported by this honorable court, but which have been twisted to mean something completely different today. Despite the quoted cases by respondent in response to petition, claiming arguments were only ‘frivolous,’ none of these cited court cases have ever had evidence in fact entered into the record, or presented as evidence to refute petitioner’s, or anyone else’s, lawful challenges to ‘prove’ them ‘frivolous’ outside hearsay and presumption.”
Among the specific questions raised: Is income tax a direct or indirect tax? What defined “income” when the income tax was adopted? What is the constitutional status of the IRS, and when do the IRS administrative procedures violate due process?
“The logical question to ask is, if petitioner is violating any laws … why is he NOT charged with criminal actions? Why is respondent taking the circuitous route using ‘administrative’ ploys, summons, and alleged ‘deficiency’ notices? The answer is because it has deceived the courts, and knows it has accomplices in committing this easy fraud using them, and it knows it cannot bring criminal charges against petition due to the record created by petition proving no such ‘failure’ would stand up in court, but would expose the ‘income’ taxation scam.”

The Supreme Court said the government’s response is due Oct. 11.
Maehr told WND that the IRS bases its existence on the “premise that the 16th Amendment allows direct unapportioned taxes on people, which it does not.”
The fight is over the fact that when one individual exchanges a $10 bill for two $5 bills from another person, there is no “profit.” Substituting labor for either side of that agreement also does not create “profit,” he said.
It’s actually not the first time the challenge has been in court. WND reported in 2007 when the Internal Revenue Service lost a lawyer’s challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation’s income tax.
At the time, lawyer Tom Cryer told WND after a jury acquitted him of two criminal tax counts that the IRS was a “fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever.”
Cryer, who has since died, told WND that the simple truth is income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but a rather category such as profit and interest.
He said the free exchange of labor for compensation has been upheld as a right by the Supreme Court, but that doesn’t necessarily make the compensation income.
He said at the time if ever such an argument were to be presented widely, there could be huge changes required in the way the federal government operates.

“The Founding Fathers intentionally restricted the taxing powers of the new federal government as a measure of restraint on its size. By exceeding that limited taxing authority the federal government has been able to obtain resources beyond its intended reach, and that money has enabled the federal government to exceed its authority,” he said.
The jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years. He had been indicted in 2006 on charges of failing to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and 2001.
At the time, spokesman Robert Marvin in Washington’s IRS office told WND the Internal Revenue Code provides for taxation on salaries or wages, but when pressed for a specific citation or constitutional provision, he said, “I can’t comment.”