Florida 2016: E-verify Constitutional Amendment Ballot Petition Started

/in , , , , , /by

Floridians for E-Verify Now have begun to collect the 683,149 petitions needed to place mandatory e-verify constitutional amendment on the 2016 ballot.

If passed the amendment would take effect on July 1 of the year following passage by the voters. The amendment requires that all Florida employers who hold business licenses shall verify the employment eligibility of all new employees through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s E-Verify system. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation shall administer this amendment through regulations, random audits, investigations of complaints, and enforcement actions. Authorizes penalties for violations of this amendment. Provides definitions.

Dr. Frank Morris, the former Executive Director of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and former Dean of Graduate Studies at Morgan State University, speaks on why Floridians need to Amend the Florida Constitution to prohibit illegal alien hiring:

Key provisions of the proposed Florida constitutional amendment are:

  • Mandates that all employers use the Federal E-Verify program to verify the employment eligibility of all new hires.
  • Prohibits the hiring of illegal aliens
  • Provides for penalties to employers that violate provisions of the amendment. Violators of this amendment can face suspension of their business license.
  • Mandates that the state enforce this amendment through regulations, random audits, investigation of complaints, and other enforcement actions.
  • Any Florida citizen has standing to seek judicial relief to compel the state to meet its constitutional obligation to enforce compliance with this amendment.

Click here to read the full text of the e-verify constitutional amendment.

Those interested in putting this amendment on the 2016 ballot may download the ballot petition at www.FloridiansForEverifyNow.org.

What Are You Willing to Give Up for Earth Day?

/in , /by

Comrades, Earth Day™ is just around the corner. We’re not talking about Christmas or Easter or Yom Kippur, we’re talking about Lenin’s Birthday!Now some outdated, religious traditions include themes of guilt and forgiveness. You know the routine. We are guilty before God and justly deserving of His punishment, but He lays our sins on His Son, Jesus Christ, and that by believing in Him we can find forgiveness of sin and eternal life. But that’s so two millennia ago.

On the other hand, Earth Day (Lenin’s Birthday!) is so progressive that it offers guilt and more guilt! See, in this advanced, highly evolved, and inclusive belief system, you are guilty before Gaia for exhaling and destroying her atmosphere, turning it into an “open sewer” to quote the Prophet Algore (PBUH). Now with Gaia, there’s none of this nonsense about atonement, justification, or propitiation. Those are big words and too hard for you to understand. You’re guilty because you might drive an SUV, consume food, once used electricity, or maybe you’re just plain white. You may have accessed healthcare to prolong your selfish, resource sucking life, and that means some poor minority child or kitten was denied healthcare – just because of you.

Forgiveness? Are you serious? When it comes to the Green Gospel, there’s only one solution, and that’s extermination. If it wasn’t for man, Bambi’s mother would be alive today instead of having her head mounted over some redneck’s fireplace desecrated with a bandanna and non-union manufactured sunglasses. We need a plan for sustainability. That’s a big word, but what it means is that we get to decide who’s a burden to Earth Mother, and who isn’t.

So who’s guilty, you ask? Probably you. Why do you think you dig holes in the ground on Earth Day? One happy day, perhaps Next Tuesday™, our government will be empowered to recycle its non-productive, Earth exploiting citizens. It’s called giving back, and it’s the only way you can redeem yourself. If we don’t take action now, all the furry animals will be dead in just ten years.

But until Next Tuesday comes along, you need to do your part. You need to confess your guilt. You need to give back. So in the days leading up to Earth Day, you need to tearfully, publicly, and loudly proclaim your sins against Gaia. You need to publish your shame by wearing awareness ribbons and riding a bicycle. In so doing, you induce feelings of necessary guilt in others, and you get a smug sense of self-righteous satisfaction because you care more. What’s not to like?

So come on, comrades, what are you willing to confess and give up in the days left before Earth Day?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

Orlando, FL: John Casey Continues to Lead in Climate Prediction

/in , , , , /by

It’s official. Mr. John L. Casey, current President of the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC) in Orlando, Florida, has become one of few, if not the only U.S. climate and solar researcher to have correctly predicted the Sun’s energy output, as measured by sunspots, for the current eleven year solar cycle. Mr. Casey calculated the peak of solar activity for the ongoing solar cycle number 24, from his research completed eight years ago, in April 2007.

A widely used resource in the solar physics community, The Royal Observatory of Belgium (ROB), recently posted its sunspot counts on April 7, 2015. The ROB indicated they “completed the definitive sunspot numbers,” for the current solar cycle 24, and determined that the peak of the cycle’s activity by sunspot count had now passed. The ROB listed the Sun’s stats for this cycle at its “Solar Index and Long Term Solar Observations (SILSO) web site: See: http://www.sidc.be/silso/home.

Each solar cycle normally has two small peaks, not just a single peak, at its most active point; about half way through the standard eleven year solar cycle. The ROB has said the two small peaks at the top of cycle number 24 were in February 2012 at 66.9 sunspots, and April 2014 at 81.8 sunspots. Unusually, the 2014 peak was the larger of the two. Typically the first peak is the more intense. The simple average of the two peaks is 74.4. Mr. Casey‘s prediction was 74.

The prediction by Mr. Casey compares with NASA and NOAA, the U.S. government’s top space science agencies, who were significantly in error from their 2006-2007 forecasts, by as much as 100%, for the Sun’s energy output, using sunspots as an indicator. They had previously predicted this solar cycle would be one of the most energetic ever recorded with sunspot counts over 145.

NASA’s latest sunspot calculations from last week show the smoothed sunspot curve had a sunspot count “of about 72 in late 2013.” See: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml.

In May 2007, Mr. Casey notified NASA that their prediction of a minimum of 145 sunspots for the peak of cycle 24 was “way off,” advising them that he predicted cycle 24 would have a peak of only 74 sunspots. NASA and NOAA solar experts confer annually on this sunspot number and since 2006, have been adjusting their 145 sunspot forecast down each year. NASA’s latest statement on the Sun also indicates the current solar cycle 24 was not the strong one they had predicted but instead was the weakest since February 1906. This is the least energetic Sun we have seen in 100 years.

The SSRC, under Mr. Casey has been leading the effort to warn the U.S. government, the media and the people, to get our country prepared for a coming cold climate. This now proven, declining energy output from the Sun, is what he and a growing number of scientists around the world say is the cause of this potentially dangerous climate change to a new cold era.

RELATED ARTICLE: Newsmax Begins Nationwide Climate Truth Program with “Dark Winter” book by John L. Casey

The Climate Change War Heats Up

/in , , , , , , , /by
AA - Climate Change Vs Capitalism

Climate change march denounces capitalism.

There is so much at stake for the charlatans that have foisted the failed “global warming” hoax, followed by the equally dubious claims and predictions regarding “climate change”, that it should come as no surprise that they have begun to wage a propaganda war on the courageous scientists who led the struggle to educate the public about the truth and the organizations who supported their efforts.

Along the way, many groups and publications claiming scientific credentials abandoned those standards to pump out global warming and climate change propaganda. Scientists discovered they could secure grant money for “research” so long as it supported claims that the North and South Poles, as well as all the world’s glaciers were melting. “Research” that predicted vast hurricane activity or a massive rise in ocean levels became routine headlines. None of it occurred. Both the government and liberal foundations provided millions to maintain the hoax.

Now we have a President claiming that his daughter’s asthma was due to “climate change.” It is obscene nonsense. If this was just a disagreement between scientists, we could look on as the facts determine the outcome, but there are vast agendas as stake so we have to keep in mind that billions have been wasted on “renewable energy” alternatives to replace fossil fuels; the oil, coal, and natural gas that are the heart’s blood of modern nations and our lives.

We have to ask why the United Nations Framework on Climate Change takes such a dim view of the world’s population that it cites its use of energy and other resources as a reason to reduce it instead of celebrating it. Hard-core environmentalists do not like humans because they build houses, start businesses, need roads, and generally consume a lot and then create trash. Climate change is also the platform the U.N. is using to “transform” the world’s economy.

We have to ask why our government is engaged in shutting down the coal-fired plants that provide the bulk of the electricity we use. This isn’t just a war on coal. It is a war on our entire economic system, capitalism. It is a war on Americans by their own government.

Lately, politicians at the federal level have declared war on those scientists whose research and findings have helped the public conclude, along with eighteen years of a natural cooling cycle, that “global warming” is no threat and that we have far greater threats to address than the vague notion that “climate change” is a problem we humans can affect in any way. We can’t and we don’t.

A recent example has been letters sent to seven university presidents by Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee asking for information on scientists and professors who had given congressional testimony that raised questions about “climate change.” Grijalva had no legal authority to request such information, but his intention was intimidation. In 2013, when asked about his legislative agenda by These Times, he replied “I’m a Saul Alinsky guy” referring to the activist whose book, “Rules for Radicals”, spells out ways to attack one’s political enemies.

Pete Peterson, the executive director of the Davenport Institute for Public Engagement at Pepperdine’s School of Public Policy, identified Grijalva’s letters as “scare tactics” concluding that we have come to a time when “The inability of politicians to confront another’s argument much less to attempt to persuade the other side, has become standard operating procedure. Now this toxic approach is extending to the broader world of policy—including scientific research.”

Around the same time, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Sen. Barbara Boxer, and Sen. Ed Markey sent a letter to a hundred companies, grade groups and other organizations “affiliated with the fossil fuel industry asking whether they spent money to support climate research.” The message was simple: do not sponsor research that would reveal inaccuracies or falsehoods regarding claims that “climate change” was a threat. The inference was that scientific research receiving such funding would betray scientific standards in ways that government or foundation funding would not.

Suffice to say the letters evoked outrage. As a policy advisor to the free market think tank, The Heartland Institute, I was aware of the response of its president, Joe Bast who called the letters something that “fascists do.” He was not alone. The Washington Times called the Senators “climate change Toquemadas” and The Wall Street Journal said the letters were nothing more than an effort to silence science.

When Sen. Whitehouse aired his unhappiness in an April 14 blog post the Huffington Post, “Right-Wing Groups Get Overheated on Climate Questions”, Bast responded asking, “If the Senator’s letter wasn’t intended as harassment of individuals who disagree with his extremist views on the climate, why the overly broad demand, the ridiculous deadline, the implied threat of action, and the news release saying it was intended to expose a diabolical conspiracy of ‘right-win groups’?”

When “climate change” reaches the political heights of Congress and the White House, it should come as no surprise that the charlatans who want to use this hoax for their own benefit and agendas are going to unleash efforts to smear and intimidate those scientists who have put true facts before the public.

In late March, Michael Bastash of The Daily Caller reported that “A new Gallup poll shows that Americans’ concern about warming has fallen to the same level it was in 1989. In fact, global warming ranked at the bottom of a list of Americans’ environmental concerns, with only 32 percent saying they were worried about it a ‘great deal.’”

That’s what has the politicians and U.N. officers on the offensive to silence scientists and defame think tanks and other organizations that have helped Americans come to the sensible conclusion that a “warming” isn’t happening and the planet’s climate is something over which they have no control.

© Alan Caruba 2015

RELATED ARTICLE: Here’s the Deal on the Court Fight Over Obama’s Carbon Regulations

Remember: Sic Semper Tyrannis

/in , , , /by

Virginia state motto, a rallying cry to be always against tyranny.

Contrary to the Virginia state motto, The Virginia State Bar (VSB) has joined the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign of the tyrannical Muslim Brotherhood (MB); its president, Kevin A. Martingayle, a Virginia Beach attorney, cancelled the Mid-Year Legal Seminar planned for Jerusalem in November.  The boycott is a non-violent war strategy, a means of denunciation and isolation consistently directed against Israel, the only democratic state in the Middle East.

Martingayle criticized Israel for its “unacceptable discriminatory policies and practices pertaining to border security,” with particular concerns that VSB’s Arab/Muslim/Palestinian members would be questioned more extensively.  Surely members of the Bar understand that security is fundamental to civilization, and that all travelers are subject to a measure of scrutiny upon entry to any country.  Martingayle cannot be unaware that Israel’s Declaration of Independence ensures “complete equality of social and political rights to all, irrespective of religion, race, or sex…”   The dissenters/petitioners would also benefit from Israel’s security arrangements unless, of course, they support the BDS movement or are found to be associated with Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator of the Holy Land Foundation trial), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim Student Association/Hamas (MSA), or any of a number of affiliated terrorist organizations that are dedicated to Israel’s destruction – the same groups that cry “Death to America.”

Jihad comes from the Arabic verb, jihada, meaning “exerted” (struggled), but it is defined as “holy war.”  Although jihad is usually associated with violence, as we learn of Islamic terrorists who carry out horrific acts against non-Muslims, Israel and the West, Islamists may battle nonbelievers clandestinely and peacefully – by means of boycott.

Interestingly, in 1945, an Arab boycott was formally declared by the newly created Arab League Council – years before Israel’s statehood.  “Jewish products and manufactured goods shall be considered undesirable to the Arab countries.”  All Arab institutions, businesses, and individuals were “to refuse to deal in, distribute, or consume Zionist products or manufactured goods.” After 1948, the boycott prohibited direct and indirect trade between Israel and Arab nations.  The intent was to isolate Israel from the world, damage her economy, and render her incapable of defending herself. Worldwide Jewry was also targeted.

In 1977, Congress prohibited the American companies from cooperating with the Arab boycott.  When President Carter signed the law, he said “the issue goes to the very heart of free trade among nations,” and that it was designed to “end the divisive effects on American life of foreign boycotts aimed at Jewish members of our society.”

The next excuse given by Martingayle and President-elect Edward L. Wiener, a Fairfax attorney, was the thus-far low enrolment for the seminar (barely 30 of the expected 60), but they shrewdly canceled before the registration deadline, and there was still ample time to extend the sign-up date for the November event.

Once again, Israel has been singled out, the only nation among the more than thirty Muslim-majority countries where the travelers’ safety was guaranteed by the US concept of due process.  The Torah is the bedrock of Israel’s contemporary democratic constitution; Israel’s laws are the antithesis of Islamic evil, Sharia, yet Israel is targeted for a boycott that is calculated to destabilize, delegitimize and eventually destroy the Jewish State.

Disgracefully, the VSB was lured from its original objectives of pubic protection, justice, and morality by fewer than 40 out of a possible 40,000 signatures on a petition of boycott, and the decision was made in secrecy to elude attention.  Every year, Israel welcomes millions of tourists and visitors, of all religions, cultural and ethnic backgrounds, many from the United States.  And, as there have been no complaints of discrimination, we can only deduce that the cancellation was prompted by anti-Semitism.

When violent terrorist attacks are not always feasible, non-violent initiatives or stealth (soft) jihad is used to impose Islamic law, Sharia, over the host population.  Under the banners of “tolerance” and “civil rights,” stealth jihadists (moderates) gradually introduce elements of Sharia into Western societies by demanding that non-Muslims grant those essentials or be smeared with accusations of racist and “Islamophobe” for daring to decline or stop the erosion of the host’s own culture.

Some examples of how stealth jihad has made inroads into U.S. and Western culture are already evident:

  • Since 9/11, American and Canadian political leaders, educators, and media have buckled under the Council of American-Islamic Relation’s (CAIR) insistence that Islam is a “religion of peace” and tolerance, and “undesirable language” (truth of Islamic activities) is curbed.
  • The Muslim Student Association (MSA) holds anti-Israeli rallies, riots against Jewish students, insists on footbaths for Muslim students, and NY public schools will now be observing Muslim holidays.
  • Asserting that Muslims are victimized, CAIR conducts sensitivity-training programs for our nation’s police departments; and has purged the FBI’s counterterrorism manuals of all Islamic references.
  • Some American textbooks have gone from one page to several chapters on Islam, with nothing comparable for Christianity and Judaism; indoctrinal Islamic films are presented.    America’s heritage and exceptionalism are destroyed and replaced by Islam.
  • Britain’s leading Islamic group demanded complete changes in public school curricula, including swim schedules and clothing requirements, Islamic prayer times and rooms.  Muslim dietary prohibitions are imposed on the whole school population, and western sports events have been discontinued.
  • Some aspects of Sharia law have been adopted in Britain, and at least 85 Sharia courts have been operating in Britain as of June 2009.
  • Swiss courts ruled in favor of “democratic pluralism” and stoning as punishment for adultery.
  • Compliance with boycott campaigns against Israel and Jewish businesses.
  • Stealth jihadists are promoting Islamic banking consistent with the principles of Sharia, and prohibiting investments that are contrary to Islamic principles.  The Islamic finance industry is worth about $800 billion globally, growing at an annual rate of 10 to 15 per cent.

By exploiting the West’s respect for minority rights and cultures, stealth jihadists seek to transform pluralistic societies into Islamic states and to gradually sweep away Western notions of legal equality, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and more. Giuseppe Bernardini, a Roman Catholic Archbishop in Turkey, notes that Saudi “petro-dollars” have been used “not to create work in the poor North African or Middle Eastern countries, but to build mosques and cultural centers in Christian countries with Islamic immigration.” He was told of this “program of expansion and re-conquest,” by a Muslim leader, who said, “Thanks to your democratic laws, we will invade you. Thanks to our religious laws, we will dominate you.”

A top Muslim Brotherhood operative in the United States, Mohamed Akram, explained that the Brotherhood “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”  In an MB memorandum, dated May 22 1991, titled, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” Akram laid out a plan to conquer and Islamize the United States, another step toward “the global Islamic state.”

In America, Akram explained, it would be extremely difficult to promote Islam by means of terror attacks. Thus the priority would be to “settle” Islam and the Brotherhood movement in the United States — by way of Islamic organizations posing as civil-rights groups — so that the Muslim faith would be incrementally accepted and “enabled within the souls, minds and the lives of the people of the country.”

I urge the Virginia State Bar to review its motto and ethics, and reinstate the trip to Israel.  Perhaps they can encourage the Islamists/protestors to see that they would be far more graciously welcomed in Israel than any Jewish attorney in Palestinian Gaza.

Guardianship: ‘A Crime Against Humanity’

/in , , , , /by

I have written about the Florida guardianship process and the danger it poses to the individual, and their family and the corruption in the system. I used two (Al Katz and Marie Winkelman) of the thousands of cases probated in Florida’s courts to show just how the system easily takes the person, their freedom and their property and leaves them, and their estate, empty.

The probate court system creates its own term of art “incapacitation”. Probate courts use the magic phrase “incapacitation” to cash in on Guardianships by illegally imprisoning tens of thousands of American citizens each year. This video explains why the term is the password to these criminally imposed “guardianships”:

Mary G. Sykes in an email writes, “I argue that it is [a crime against humanity].  Seniors railroaded into guardianships and forcibly evicted by the police from their homes (RLVN, Gore, Wyman, et alia), or by a relative (Sykes), homes sold, personal property plundered without accounting (Wyman, Sykes, RLVN, Reichert, et alia), seniors isolated from former family and friends and ‘caretakers’ that are really bodyguards or lootguards put in place (Stone, Reichert, et alia) and they they are forcibly drugged with dangerous psychotropic drugs so that if they did not have dementia before, they will get it in a few short months (Frake, Stone, Col. Smith, et alia).”

Kenneth Ditkowsky notes, “The guardianship for profit industry coupled with their elder cleansing operation is a major revenue source for the most corrupt of our political people.  The Gulag is America’s dirty secret!”

What is sad is Florida is supposed to be a great retirement magnet for the elderly – the sunshine state. The truth, in some elderly cases, is that it is anything but that. Florida can be a very dark place for our elderly.

Republican Party Elites Abandon Traditional Marriage

/in , , , , , /by

Cliff Kincaid from Accuracy in Media reports:

Only six of 54 Republican members of the Senate signed a pro-traditional marriage legal brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that was submitted on Friday. USA Today noted, “By contrast, 44 Democratic senators and 167 Democratic House members filed a brief last month urging the court to approve same-sex marriage. The brief included the full House and Senate [Democratic] leadership teams.”

Read more.

A brief to the court filed by Liberty Counsel notes that, in the past, the Supreme Court has upheld marriage as “a foundational social institution that is necessarily defined as the union of one man and one woman.” It cites the case of Skinner v. Oklahoma, in which marriage was declared to be “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race,” and Maynard v. Hill, in which marriage was declared “the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

Liberty Counsel said the court is being asked to affirm a false notion of marriage based upon fraudulent data about homosexual activity in society. It said, “For the past 67 years, scholars, lawyers and judges have undertaken fundamental societal transformation by embracing Alfred Kinsey’s statistically and scientifically fraudulent ‘data’ derived from serial child rapists, sex offenders, prisoners, prostitutes, pedophiles and pederasts. Now these same change agents, still covering up the fraudulent nature of the Kinsey ‘data,’ want this Court to utilize it to demolish the cornerstone of society, natural marriage.”

The homosexual movement has long maintained that Kinsey validated changes in sexual behavior that were already taking place in society. In fact, however, the evidence uncovered by Dr. Judith Reisman shows that Kinsey deliberately exaggerated those changes in a fraudulent manner by using data from pedophiles and prisoners.

Commenting on the impact of the acceptance of the fraudulent Kinsey data, Accuracy in Media founder Reed Irvine noted, “Gradually over the years, acceptance of the Kinsey morality has grown to the point where premarital and extramarital sex raise no eyebrows, where, in some communities, out-of-wedlock births are in the majority, homosexuality is glorified and aggressively promoted in our schools and the last taboo—adults having sex with young children—is now under attack in some of our institutions of higher learning.”

The Republican Conservative Steering Committee released the following statement:

Leaders of the 2012 Republican National Convention Committee on the Platform and the Republican Conservative Steering Committee filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court urging the Court to consider the societal benefits of traditional marriage as it considers whether to uphold Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee, and Kentucky laws protecting such marriage.

The Brief argues that the states have an important interest in protecting and promoting traditional marriage and family as the foundation of a free society.

“The Republican Party has sought to protect and promote traditional marriage and family as the foundation of a free society, since the success of traditional families minimizes the need for government programs and intervention and because traditional families form a bulwark against the growth of government and its excesses. As a result, many states have protected and promoted traditional marriage in pursuit of this important government interest, often with bipartisan support, and their laws that do so are thereby constitutional,” explains attorney James Bopp, Jr., an amicus and lead counsel for all amici.

The friends-of-the-Court are members of the leadership of the 2012 Republican National Convention Committee on the Platform: Co-Chairman of the Committee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), and Co-Chairmen of the Subcommittees with jurisdiction over marriage and family James Bopp, Jr. (Subcommittee on We the People: A Restoration of Constitutional Government) and Carolyn McLarty (Subcommittee on Renewing American Values to Build Healthy Families, Great Schools and Safe Neighborhoods).

In addition, the Republican Conservative Steering Committee, an independent organization comprising the majority of the current members of the Republican National Committee, is also an amicus. The Steering Committee voted to approve submission of the Brief.

The Brief explains that, since its inception, the Republican Party has been the champion of equality, individual freedom and limited government and, as a result, of the family.

“The Republican Party has always stood for equality, individual freedom, and limited government, and traditional marriage and family helps ensure that,” says attorney and amicus Bopp.

“The Party’s motivation for its pro-family policies has never been about ill will towards any American and, historically, has had nothing whatsoever to do with same-sex marriage. It is quite the opposite: every American deserves the opportunity at the very best chance of success in this country, without government dependency or intrusion, and traditional marriage helps accomplish that.” Mr. Bopp continues, “State governments have a compelling reason to protect traditional marriage and family as the foundation of a free society.”

Amicus Carolyn McLarty stated. “I am honored to be an amicus or “friend-of-the court” on this Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court.  This Brief has presented a fresh argument for keeping, promoting, and protecting traditional marriage as a necessity for a free society.”

Today the Republican Conservative Steering Committee launched a petition on their website so the grassroots supporters of traditional marriage can sign in support of the Amicus Brief.

The case is Obergefell, et al. v. Hodges, et al.

Carolyn McLarty, DVM is a retired veterinarian from Woodward, Oklahoma. She is currently the Republican National Committeewoman for Oklahoma and the Chairman of the Republican Conservative Steering Committee.

To see the Petition for Republican Voters to sign in support of the Brief see www.RepublicanCSC.com.  A copy of the Amicus Brief is available at this website.

If Republicans abandon traditional marriage then who will stand against the certain evils that will follow?

The Greatest U.S. National Security Threat: A Godless Military

/in , , , , /by

In May 2014 I wrote about the U.S. military being trained to be Godless. I wrote, “It appears God has been removed from the soldier, Godlessness is becoming the norm.”

Today a U.S. military survey bears out what I said then.

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council in a column titled A Morale Dilemma writes:

The slogan used to be “An Army of one.” And if the military isn’t careful, that’s exactly what they’ll have. America’s soldiers are more disgruntled than ever, a new report in a depressing string of outcomes shows. Of the branch’s 777,000 soldiers more than half (52 percent) are unhappy — or worse, “rarely count(ing) on good things happening” to them. Almost as many — 48 percent — explain that what was once one of the most rewarding jobs on the planet is now anything but.

Dissatisfied and disrespected, hundreds of thousands of soldiers say their commitment is waning. The warning signs have been there all along, but only recently have the surveys started to confirm what most long suspected: that this administration’s radical policies are having a catastrophic effect on the troops. Only 28 percent of the Army and National Guard feel good about what they do — a low-water mark for one of the nation’s proudest traditions: military service. Two-thirds, USA Today reports, are “borderline or worse for an area called ‘catastrophic thinking'” — despite six years of an “optimism program” meant to make soldiers resilient. At $287 million, the campaign has been a dismal failure.

Like most of the Pentagon’s fixes, this one can’t seem to overcome the toxic environment created by the President’s attacks on faith, values, and brotherhood. The Army’s “positive psychology” never had a chance in a culture of non-stop sexual engineering and foreign policy incompetence. Not to mention that this “optimism program” doesn’t compete with the original one — and that’s faith! Why not save a quarter of a billion dollars and stop discouraging a source of real positivity: religion?

This is not a new issue.

In the July 2000 Journal of Military History column Character Education in the U.S. Army, 1947-1977, Anne C. Loveland wrote,  “In 1947, amidst great fanfare, the US Army activated and experimental unit at Fort Knox, Kentucky, made up of 664 young men between the ages of 17 and 20 (average age 17 1/2). Since the autumn of 1945, the Truman Administration had been pressing Congress to institute universal military training (UMT), and the Fort Know unit was set up to demonstrate the kind of instruction it would involve… But the most publicized aspect of the experiment was the program of moral, religious, and citizenship instruction administered by three chaplains who delivered fifty-minute lectures on such subjects as ‘The Ten Commandments,’ ‘Grounds for Moral Conduct,’ ‘Purity in Thought, Word and Deed,’ ‘Marriage as a Sacred Institution,’ The Citizen and Morality,’ and ‘Citizen and Honesty’.”

“The program developed for the Fort Knox experimental unit and subsequently expanded to the Army as a whole emphasized three inter-dependent components: religion, character building, and citizenship,” notes Loveland. “Army publications explicitly stated the religious basis of Character guidance, pointed out that the principles the chaplains taught came from God. A lecture entitled ‘Natural Law’ and ‘Moral Law’ concluded with the declaration that ‘our chief responsibly as moral beings is toward God.”

Over time Loveland reports that there was push back against character and morals training by unit commanders, who wanted the time spent on unit training.

Loveland writes, “Whatever the reason for it, it is clear that chaplain disaffection played as important a role as command resistance in undermining character education in the 1970s. In 1977, the Army officially discontinued the already moribund Human Self Development program [which replaced moral and character programs]. Thus ended the Army’s thirty-year experiment in character education.”

Loveland concludes, “If the concern with national preparedness in the 1940s impelled Army leaders to institute character education, the decision to end the draft in 1973 hastened the demise of the program. In the early 1970s, when Army leaders began planning implementation of the all-volunteer force, they decided to deemphasize the existing character education program. With public approval of the draft no longer a concern, they sidelined a program designed to inculcate personal and civic values in an army of citizen-soldiers, relying instead on a revitalized military ethic to teach the values and behavior of professional soldiers.”

We now have a military without character. An immoral perhaps Godless military. 

History repeats itself. We have seen and fought against army’s without character in WW II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Sadly, the U.S. Military has morphed into a “professional force” without character. As President Harry Truman wrote, “[T]he spiritual and moral health of the Armed Forces is a vital element in our national security.” 

Our national security is threatened by our post-draft, post-modern and Godless military.

RELATED VIDEO:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Plan Would Let Transgender People Serve Openly in Military

Defense Secretary: 10,400 Male Troops Subjected to ‘Unwanted Sexual Contact’ Last Year

U.S. Military Hostile to Christians Under Obama; Morale, Retention Devastated [+Video]

Sex, Drugs, and Dead Soldiers: What U.S. Africa Command Doesn’t Want You to Know

Reining In Soldiers of Fortune – New York Times

Obama’s Agents of Scandal

BANNED FILM: Hillary Clinton Exposed [full version]

/in , , , /by

hillary the movie posterTyler Bass from Forbidden Knowledge TV writes, “In the middle of the 2008 U.S. presidential primaries, the District Court for the District of Columbia blocked the nonprofit political advocacy group Citizens United from releasing a documentary targeting Hillary Clinton. The district court ruled that the conservative 501(c)(3)’s release, backed by unknown corporations, had run afoul of campaign finance law. Only after the entire election concluded would the Supreme Court vindicate Citizens United and thereby open the floodgates to a political reality where, many fear, corporate entities and unions carry undue influence.”

Today Democrats use the Supreme Court decision on Citizens United to rally their followers against any who support conservative groups. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, in an April 15th, 2015, email to party members states, “Hillary Clinton calls for anti-Citizens United Constitutional Amendment. Hillary Clinton just laid out her top priorities at her first campaign event — and called for an END of dark money in politics.”

The question is whose money?

Bob Heller notes:

Its hard not to laugh, but this is no laughing matter. Hillary Clinton says there is to much money in politics as it is reported she will raise over $2.2 billion in her campaign to become president. This is about 50% more than Obama raised who also said there is to much money in politics.

Ms. Clinton is also disturbed that some CO’s earn to much. But she has no compunction raising tens of millions of dollars from them. She says the disparity in income between the rich and middle class is terrible. She should know considering the enormous wealth she and Bill Clinton amassed using their exalted political offices.

It might seem strange to a lot of people that she doesn’t consider herself overpaid when she give a 45 minute speech and is paid between $200 and $350 thousand dollars plus thousands of dollars more in perks.

Read more.

Perhaps it is time to expose Hillary for what she really is the largest campaign fundraiser in post-modern American politics.

Watch the full version of the “Dark-Money” Anti-Hillary Film a Federal Court Silenced produced by Citizens United in 2008 – Hillary: The Movie

Jailed in Atlanta, Walking Around Free in Miami-Dade: Different Strokes for Different Folks

/in , , , , /by

On Tuesday, three Atlanta educators were sentenced to seven years in prison, and six others given terms of 1-7 years, for their part in the massive test cheating scandal in Atlanta Public Schools, with more prison sentences expected.  Two educators out of ten took the State’s plea deal- so far, the terms have not been reported.

At an emotional hearing, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Jerry Baxter called the case “the sickest thing that’s ever happened in this town.”

Unfortunately for them, they did not work at Miami Norland Senior High School and participate in Adobegate, for if they had, they would be walking around free amongst us like Mr. Emmanuel Fleurantin and Mrs. Brenda Muchnick.

Florida, like Georgia, has statutes relating to test cheating and racketeering:

  •  Florida Statute 1008.24, “Test Administration and Security,” makes it a misdemeanor to engage in standardized test cheating: “A person who violates this section commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.”
  • Florida Statute 895.03, Section 1 states: “It is unlawful for any person who has with criminal intent received any proceeds derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through the collection of an unlawful debt to use or invest, whether directly or indirectly, any part of such proceeds, or the proceeds derived from the investment or use thereof, in the acquisition of any title to, or any right, interest, or equity in, real property or in the establishment or operation of any enterprise.”
  • Florida Statute 775.0844, “White Collar Crime Victim Protection Act,” states in Section 2: “Due to the frequency with which victims, particularly elderly victims, are deceived and cheated by criminals who commit nonviolent frauds and swindles, frequently through the use of the Internet and other electronic technology and frequently causing the loss of substantial amounts of property, it is the intent of the Legislature to enhance the sanctions imposed for nonviolent frauds and swindles, protect the public’s property, and assist in prosecuting white collar criminals.”

Adobegate was a host of white collar crimes that took place over the Internet as the tests were given online with the answers provided to the students by cheat sheets given by their teachers- Mr. Fleurantin and Mrs. Muchnick.

Though Florida, like Georgia, has the legal framework to pursue charges against those involved in Adobegate, Florida officials lack the motivation and inclination unlike Georgia, Texas, and Pennsylvania officials to prosecute them and seek justice.

Mr. Trevor Colestock, the whistle-blower, is of the opinion that other schools were involved and that Adobegate is being covered up to prevent others from speaking out and from exposing a larger and costlier fraud to Florida and federal taxpayers; is it so as to protect politically connected Miami-Dade County Public Schools officials such as Superintendent Alberto Carvalho?

Could it be that state and federal officials did not pursue Mr. Colestock’s complaints so as to avoid embarrassment and protect M-DCPS officials?

How far does Adobegate go?

What other schools and M-DCPS employees were involved and to what cost?

Only a thorough investigation will answer these questions, and the general public and Mr. Colestock, who was retaliated against for exposing Adobegate, are owed that much.

RELATED ARTICLE: Former D.C. Whistleblower Principal Adell Cothorne on the Atlanta Verdict

Emerson College Poll: California May Be In Play For 2016 Presidential Race

/in , , , /by

BOSTON, April 14, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A new poll conducted in California by the Emerson College Polling Society (ECPS) suggests that the perennially blue state, which has not been won by a Republican presidential candidate since 1988, may be in play for the 2016 election.

Hillary Clinton holds a commanding 46-point lead over Senator Elizabeth Warren, her nearest potential rival for the Democratic nomination. However, in head-to-head matchups with the top two GOP contenders, Jeb Bushand Scott Walker, Clinton’s 53% to 47% edge is within the poll’s margin of error of +/- 3.2%.

California Republicans are split on who their candidate will be. Among those who plan to vote in the GOP primary, Bush and Walker are tied at 17%, physician Ben Carson trails by two points at 15%, and TexasSenator Ted Cruz is at 11%. Nearly 1 in 5 are undecided.

Harris is Leading the U.S. Senate Race

The poll also looked at the U.S. Senate seat being vacated in 2016 by the retirement of Democratic incumbent Barbara Boxer. California Attorney General Kamala Harris is leading a hypothetical field with 23% of the vote, followed by former eBay executive and 2010 gubernatorial loser Meg Whitman at 13%. Rocky Chavez, the only Republican to officially enter the race so far, came in third at 9%.

Water is the Top Issue

Water scarcity is the biggest issue facing California according to 31% of those polled, followed by immigration (21%) and jobs and the economy (13%). Seven in ten Californians (71%) support the mandatory water-use restrictions imposed by Governor Jerry Brown, including 48% who are strongly supportive. Only 18% oppose the cuts. Asked where they would make major reductions at home, 44% said they would reduce watering lawns and plantings, 15% cited showers and baths, and 9% would stop filling their swimming pools. 14% would make no reductions.

Worry is highest (41%) in the agriculturally important Central Valley region. A much larger percentage of Democrats (83%) favor water restrictions than Republicans (60%) and non-aligned voters (55%).

EDITORS NOTE: The ECPS survey was conducted statewide in California in English and Spanish from April 2-8, using an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system. The survey sample consisted of 881 registered voters. The poll has a margin of error of +/-3.2% with a 95% confidence level. The full survey methodology and results can be found at www.theecps.com

The Betrayal Papers: Part V – Who is Barack Hussein Obama?

/in , , , , /by

Introduction: 

The Betrayal Papers have thus far investigated and explained the Obama administration and their alliance with the international terrorist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood. The articles analyzed several aspects of White House policy, foreign and domestic, and compared them to the objectives of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Parts V and VI will explore the personal ties that bind Obama, as well as the progressive American left, to the Muslim Brotherhood.

This is a portrait of a conspiracy that has reached unprecedented heights of global control.

“A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”

Has there ever been a president whose personal history is so murky, so questionable, and so baffling? All one must do is recall the allegations, still open for debate and research, that checker Obama’s background. Laid out below are some of these allegations, not to be proved or disproved, but to remind the reader that Obama’s personal history is replete with question marks.

  • A 1991 promotional literary pamphlet featured a short biographical sketch of Obama, and claimed he was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”
  • What is his actual name? The only publicly available school record for Obama lists him as an Indonesian citizen named Barry Soetoro.
  • Moreover, on an immigration document from 1965, Obama’s mother included the name “Soebarkah” under Barack Hussein Obama. This is likely a name given to him by the Islamic cult of Subud, to which his mother proudly and openly belonged.
  • For a reason yet to be explained, Obama’s Social Security number begins with the prefix 042, which corresponds to Connecticut, a state in which Obama has never lived.
  • Regarding his academic records, recall that Obama attended three universities: Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard University (his admission to which coincides with a $25 million dollar donation from the Saudi’s to the Harvard Law School). His academic records with these three institutions have never been revealed, despite efforts by investigative reporters. The student body president at Columbia University during Obama’s time there, Wayne Allen Root (once the Libertarian Party Vice Presidential candidate), has stated publicly that he never met or even heard of Obama while at Columbia, and cannot find any classmates of his who remember him either. Root, like Obama, was a political science major.
  • While campaigning for President, candidate Obama presented himself as a “Professor” of Constitutional Law while at the University of Chicago. Yet this turned out to be untrue. In fact, he was a “Senior Lecturer,” a title and position significantly less prestigious than Professor.
  • Finally, the best known and most researched of these allegations is the issue of Obama’s birth certificate. From his days as a candidate in the Democrat primary, the place of Obama’s birth has been in contention. While Obama has insisted he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961, there are others who claim he was born in Mombasa, Kenya; there’s even a copy of his purported Kenyan birth certificate. Moreover, apparently trustworthy sources swear that the Long Form Birth Certificate is a forgery.

All these questions leave the investigator with only one choice: to define Obama not by his inconsistent biographical details, but by his associations and actions.

The Communist Prelude: Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s Mentor

As documented extensively in Paul Kengor’s book The Communist, Davis ranks high among Obama’s early life influences. A literal card carrying member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), Davis was considered by the FBI an enemy of the state.

  • Frank Marshall Davis, a known Soviet Communist and admirer of Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler, was a friend of Obama’s mother’s father, Stanley Dunham.
  • The Communist Davis lived in both Hawaii and in Chicago. He was Barack Obama’s mentor through the 1970s, until his departure for Occidental College in 1979.
  • Davis was also a pornographer. In his book Sex Rebel, he wrote excitedly about having sex with minors. Pedophilia was unusual for Communists of the era: Harry Hay, another Communist and associate of Davis, was reportedly an advocate of NAMBLA, the National Man-Boy Love Association.
  • In 1995, in a broadcast on Cambridge Municipal Television, Barack Obama described Davis as “a close friend of my maternal grandfather, a close friend of gramps” and “fairly a well-known poet.”

Irrespective of the publicly accepted, sanitized biography of young Obama, the historical facts establish that his primary political mentor was a Soviet Communist sex offender, introduced to him by his mother’s family.

Tell me who your friends are, and I’ll tell you who you are

George Soros

George Soros, aka György Schwartz, is the Hungarian-born billionaire investor and financier behind a tangled constellation of progressive front organizations. Among these front organizations are: The Open Society Foundation/Institute, ACORN, Think Progress, the Center for American Progress, Code Pink, Occupy Wall Street, National Council of La Raza, the Tides Foundation, MoveOn.org, the New America Foundation, and the International Crisis Group. As one writer wrote succinctly in 2011, “Essentially, the entire leftist wing of the Democrat party, including the President can be tied to George Soros in some way.”

  • Soros was born in 1930 in Budapest, Hungary, to a Jewish family. He grew up in wartime Hungary and was an admitted Nazi collaborator who turned other Jews over to the Nazi authorities. To this day, he has stated that he has no remorse for his actions of turning in Jews to the Nazis and having their property confiscated. As Soros said to 60 Minutes reporter Steve Kroft it was “the happiest time of my life.”
  • Soros is a financial manipulator and breaker of currencies. In 1992, Soros crashed the British pound when he made a bet it would correct against the Deutschemark.
  • Soros has a history of using government influence for personal gain. In 1999, (Bill Clinton’s) Secretary of State Madeline Albright blocked a $500 million loan by the U.S. Import-Export Bank to the Russian oil company Tyumen. Tyumen planned to use this money to acquire one of Soros’ companies and a Siberian oil field, and apparently Soros felt his deal wasn’t sweet enough. A few months later, Albright did indeed approve the loan, but only after Soros was guaranteed additional protections for his interests at the expense of Tyumen.
  • This pattern repeated in 2009, when the U.S. Import-Export Bank announced a “preliminary commitment” to loan $2 billion to the Brazilian oil giant Petrobras. This caused the shares in the company to rise 27.9% from April 2009-August 2009 (the time of the announcement). Soros, a major shareholder in the company, profited handsomely.
  • In 2002, French authorities prosecuted Soros for insider trading. In 2012, the government of Russia issued an arrest warrant for Soros for violating Basel II financial regulations.
  • Obama’s foreign policy and the Arab Spring are intertwined with Soros interests. In 2008 the International Crisis Group (aka ICG, a Soros front), issued a paper that urged the Egyptian government to allow the Muslim Brotherhood to form a political party. Anyone with knowledge of the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities in Egypt from the 1940s onward, which include assassinations and terrorism, understands the necessity of the Egyptian government’s hard line on the terror group.
  • Interestingly, ICG is also home to Ambassador Thomas Pickering, the Obama administration’s lead investigator for Benghazi, as well as Robert Malley, who was recently appointed by Obama to a prominent position to lead Middle East policy, despite a history of connections to Hamas.
  • In a 2011 op-ed for the Washington Post, Soros himself referred to Israel – not Hamas – as the “stumbling block” in Middle East peace. In the same piece, Soros encouraged the Muslim Brotherhood to be given a seat at the table in Egyptian political life, and urged Obama to support the Arab Spring overthrow of ally Mubarak.

Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn

Of all the nefarious personal relationships of Barack Hussein Obama, the bloodthirsty couple of Bill Ayers and wife Bernadine Dorhn are the most unsettling. In the 1960s, Ayers and Dohrn were notorious radicals, anarchists, and terrorists – declared enemies of American society.

Ayers and Dorhn hosted a meet-and-greet and fundraiser for candidate Obama when he first ran for public office. Indeed, Obama’s political career was launched from the couple’s living room in Hyde Park.

  • Bill Ayers’ father was Tom Ayers, President of Commonwealth Edison (the power company of Chicago) from 1964-1980, and Chairman from 1973-1980. The Ayers family was close to the corrupt Daley political machine and involved in various philanthropic causes, and Bill was a son of considerable privilege. The Ayers family connection to power production is important to note in connection with the Chicago Climate Exchange, which will be detailed in Part VI.
  • Despite his mainstream upbringing, Ayers gravitated to terrorism and revolution. In 1969, he, Dorhn, and other radicals founded the Weather Underground. From its inception until the early 1980s, this group of nihilist anarchists would claim responsibility for targets that included police, an R.O.T.C building, the home of a judge, New York City Police Headquarters, and The Pentagon.
  • Dorhn and Ayers lived for a time as fugitives together, and eventually married. But due to legal technicalities neither Ayers nor Dorhn ever served time for their crimes.
  • The couple has two sons. Both were, curiously, given Islamic names: Zayd and Malik.
  • Ayers has admitted not once, but twice that he is author of the Obama’s memoir, Dreams of my Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, published in 1995.
  • On September 11, 2001, a review of an upcoming book by Bill Ayers appeared in the New York Times. In the memoir Fugitive Days, Ayers recounted his time on the lam. Wrote Ayers in the book, the lines which were reprinted in the Times the morning of September 11: “Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon,” and “I feel we didn’t do enough.”
  • A few hours after that edition of New York Times hit newsstands on 9/11/2001, four planes were hijacked by Al Qaeda. Two of them brought down the World Trade Center. Another crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. And the other slammed into the Pentagon, once a target of Bill Ayers, scarring the symbol of American military might and killing 125 people.
  • Consider the psyche of Dohrn (from 1991-2013 a professor at Northwestern Law School) who, upon hearing of the horrific murder of actress Sharon Tate (where a fork was stuck into her nine-month pregnant belly) by psychopath Charles Manson’s gang, stated: “Dig it. First they killed those pigs and then they put a fork in pig Tate’s belly. Wild!” Dohrn then adopted the “fork salute” for the Weatherman.
  • Years after 9/11/2001, Dohrn and Ayers would openly associate with Islamic terrorists. First, in connection with the 2010 “Peace Flotilla,” a terrorist smuggling operation originating from Turkey that sought to arm Hamas in Gaza. The rabid couple’s attraction to terrorism was enabled by the Soros front group, Code Pink.
  • In 2011, Ayers and Dohrn teamed up with Code Pink once again when they crashed the revolution in Egypt’s Tahrir Square to help oust American and Israeli ally Hosni Mubarak. Reliving their youth, they pulled a page from their old playbook, teaching the protestors how to organize their very own “day of rage.”

Valerie Jarrett

No figure in the administration holds more sway over Barack Obama than his Senior Adviser, Valerie Jarrett. Officially in charge of the Offices of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, her Twitter handle – vj44, as in “Valerie Jarrett, 44th President” – conveys a truer sense of her power. Yet not even one American voted for President Jarret.

  • Valerie June Bowman Jarrett was born in Shiraz, Iran in 1956 to James and Barbara Taylor Bowman. An examination of Jarrett’s family is the key to understanding her influence in Chicago.
  • Jarrett’s father James, a Howard University graduate, was, at the time of her birth, working as a physician and geneticist in Iran. Her mother Barbara’s family is deeply connected to Chicago politics. Jarret’s maternal grandfather was Robert Taylor, who was on the board of the Chicago Housing Authority, a municipal corporation. To this day the Robert Taylor Homes, a public housing project, bear his name.
  • A political appointment, Jarrett was not subjected to confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Yet according to every published account, it is she who is the true center of gravity in the administration. Ranging from healthcare “reform” to negotiating with terrorist Iran, the Senior Adviser, not the President, calls the shots at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
  • The few murmurings which have come out regarding Jarrett’s omnipresence in the White House have not been flattering. According to one former administration official, “It’s pretty toxic… She went to whatever meeting she wanted to go to—basically all of them—and then would go and whisper to the president. Or at least everyone believed she did. … People don’t trust the process. They think she’s a spy.”
  • Even Obama’s former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, according to author Jonathan Alter, was “tired of being undermined by Valerie Jarrett” when he resigned from his position.
  • Given Jarrett’s political force in the capital, the media’s curiosity about Jarrett’s background, governing principles, ideological beliefs, and business dealings has been conspicuously lacking.
  • One of Robert Taylor’s (Jarret’s grandfather) business partners was Rufus Cook. Rufus’s ex-wife, Ann, is a cousin of Jarrett’s. Cook is also a legal counsel for Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, based out of Chicago. In 2007, the country was shocked when a video emerged that showed the pastor of Obama’s church, Reverend Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ, saying of September 11, 2001, “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.” This was a borrowed line, originally spoken by the Nation of Islam’s silver-tongued spokesman, Malcolm X, referring to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
  • Indeed, TUCC’s Reverend Wright and NOI’s Louis Farrakhan are thick as thieves. In 1984, Wright and Farrakhan traveled together to Libya to meet the “Mad Dog of the Middle East,” Muammar Gaddafi.
  • Another Jarrett cousin is Antoinette “Toni” Cook Bush, daughter of Rufus and Ann. In 2013, Toni, a Chicago lawyer, was hired as the head lobbyist for News Corp, owner of Fox News. This is perhaps why Jarrett has been spotted dining with News Corp CEO, Australian Rupert Murdoch.
  • Jarrett’s family has direct connections to Obama’s Communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis. Jarrett’s father in law, Vernon Jarrett, was a journalist who worked with Frank Marshall Davis Citizens’ Committee to Aid Packing-House Workers. In his younger years, explains Kengor, Vernon Jarrett “had been elected to the Illinois Council of American Youth for Democracy, the CPUSA youth wing.” Finally, Robert Taylor (mentioned above) was on the board of Chicago Civil Liberties Union with Frank Marshall Davis.

Jarrett, who met Obama in 1991 and introduced him to Michelle, is a part of their family. Given her connections and power, is it any surprise that she recently said to The New York Times Magazine, “I intend to stay [in the White House] until the lights go off.”

Tony Rezko

Antoin “Tony” Rezko is the Chicago-based Syrian-American slumlord who arranged a corrupt deal for the Obama’s home. Rezko, who is currently serving a 10 ½ year prison sentence and was known for influence peddling through bribery, crafted a special deal in which he loaned money to the Obamas and donated to their campaign organization … all while setting them up in a mansion in Hyde Park.

  • Obama’s relationship with the corrupt Rezko goes back decades. Rezko tried to hire Obama to work for his real estate company Rezmar when he graduated from Harvard Law School. In 2008, Obama stated that Rezko was a “friend” whom he had “known for 20 years.”
  • The Chicago Sun-Times estimated that Obama had received “$168,308 from Rezko and his circle.”
  • In 2005, Rezko arranged the purchase of the Obamas’ home in Chicago. Because the Obama’s were not in the financial position to purchase the house at the time, Rezko made a deal with the owner to purchase the adjoining empty lot next to the home at above market price to compensate for the Obamas’ below market offer on the home ($1.65 million versus the $1.95 asking price).
  • The Rezko case unfolded before the nation as Barack Obama was ascending to the presidency. It embroiled Patrick Fitzgerald (who was previously known for prosecuting Vice President Cheney’s chief-of-staff Scooter Libby), Illinois Governor Rob Blagojevich (who is serving a 14 year jail sentence), Obama, and Rezko.
  • The convicted felon Rezko is an associate of international criminal and former Saddam Hussein agent, Iraqi Nadhmi Auchi.

Nadhmi Auchi

The Iraqi operator Nadhmi Auchi is the sort of rarefied sort of gentlemen you would normally come across in a spy novel. On the surface, Nadhmi Auchi is a business magnate, a dynamo philanthropist, and an honored citizen of many countries. As was explained by a former senior official of the Defense, State, and Commerce departments, John A. Shaw, Mr. Auchi made a name for himself as the international financier and arms dealer extraordinaire of Saddam Hussein. By 1980, Auchi was an asset of the British foreign intelligence service, MI6. (So multi-faceted is this billionaire mystery man that he has his own dedicated Wikileaks page.) Auchi and Tony Rezko were partners in real estate and pizza.

  • Contemporary to the timeline of Obama’s political rise in Chicago, Auchi was building an influence operation one brick at a time in the very same city. His ties from the Middle East to America’s Midwest made his enterprise a conduit of Middle Eastern money into the United States of America.
  • Shaw writes, “Nadhmi Auchi, despite his purchased respectability in England, was the financial eminence behind the Chicago-Arab combine, and the man who, with Rezko, helped invent Barack Obama as a political star.” Through Tony Rezko, his local bagman, Auchi financed and guided Obama (and Jarrett) into the Oval Office.
  • While a large shareholder in BNP Paribas, Auchi was involved with the U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal, which was based on the sale of Iraqi oil.
  • In 2004, Auchi was banned from entering the U.S. for scamming the Pentagon on an Iraqi cellular deal he helped broker. After securing rights to Iraq’s cellular services, Auchi went on to corner the market on power contracts for the post-war transition, as well.
  • If Soros personifies the Progressive wing of Obama’s politics, it is Auchi that personifies the wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. Auchi’s stances on litmus test issues tell who he is, politically speaking, in the Middle East. Auchi is anti-Semitic, and led support for the Turkish terror flotilla (an operation which ties him to Ayers, Dorhn, and Soros).
  • It may seem an odd dichotomy that two people in low cost housing, Valerie Jarrett and Toni Rezko, and two artful and sophisticated investors, Auchi and Soros (both of whom are convicted of financial crimes in France), ushered Obama to the presidency. Yet each one of these individuals shares one lethal trait: they are masters at using government for their personal gain.
  • Auchi has a history of suing his critics, and silencing those who cause too much trouble. His reputation as an aggressive litigator and someone who won’t hesitate to kill may have convinced journalist David Ignatius to think twice about disclosing his knowledge of Auchi’s activities. For instead of a nonfiction book, Ignatius did indeed pen a spy novel, The Bank of Fear, based on Auchi’s career.

Rashid Khalidi and Edward Said

Rashid Khalidi is an anti-Semitic professor and historian of Palestine. Khalidi is currently the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University. During their Chicago years, the Obamas were close friends with Khalidi and his wife, Mona. They were also friends with Edward Said, Khalidi’s mentor.

  • Throughout the 1970s, when Khalidi taught at the University of Beirut, he routinely spoke on behalf of Yasser Arafat’s terrorist Palestinian Liberation Organization.
  • The Obamas and Khalidis have been friends for decades. When in Chicago, the Obamas regularly dined with the Khalidis.
  • In 1998, the Obamas attended a banquet which featured Edward Said as the keynote speaker. Said, a Palestinian-American (now deceased), had long been a critic of the State of Israel, which he referred to as being in “illegal military occupation since 1967.”
  • In 2000, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama when he was running for Congress. The following year, the Woods Foundation (where Obama served as a Board member) donated $40,000 to Mona Khalidi’s charity.
  • As one pro-Palestinian activist phrased it in 2008, when Obama’s views on Israel and Palestine were a subject of controversy: “I am confident that Barack Obama is more sympathetic to the position of ending the occupation than either of the other candidates.”

With the benefit of more than six years of hindsight, it is clear that Barack Hussein Obama (with the eager cooperation of Secretary of State John Kerry) has been the most anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian president in United States history.

Conclusion

A man does not become President of the United States without very high powered connections. Usually these connections are accumulated through a long career of public service, whether in the U.S. Congress, Executive, or on the state level. Obama rose to the Presidency after serving a scant four years in the U.S. Senate, two of which were spent running for President. Prior to that, he served an unremarkable seven years in the Illinois State Senate.

Before launching his political career in the living room of American anarchists, Obama was a community-organizing lawyer for progressive groups. Among them was ACORN, which was instrumental in creating the housing bubble.

With such little authentic biography available, we are forced to define Obama by his friends. They include financial and political manipulators and fixers, corrupt businessmen and international criminals, card-carrying Communists and FBI-identified enemies of the state, terrorists foreign and domestic, and their academic apologists.

Part VI will conclude The Betrayal Papers with a look at the various interconnected schemes of the above-named Obama associates.

RELATED VIDEO:

Hillary Clinton Thinks Common Core “A Good Idea”

/in , , , , , /by

Hillary Clinton was in Iowa today, campaigning.

According to The Guardian’s live blog coverage by Tom McCarthy, Hillary Clinton is sympathetic towards “the plight of Common Core.”McCarthy reports::

Clinton bemoaned the plight of Common Core educational standards, a good idea she said had been taken hostage by the political debate.

Implicit in Clinton’s message is that Common Core would have been just fine except that it became entangled in politics.

Get a clue, Hillary: Common Core was birthed in politics.

But I think you know that.

The National Governors Association (NGA) is one of two organizations that holds the Common Core copyright. That right there is a problem for a so-called “state led” education initiative.

Then there is U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan using federal money to pay for two Common-Core-associated testing consortia– and announcing as much in 2009, before there even was a Common Core.

Never mind that the other Common Core copyright owner, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), has a CEO, Gene Wilhoit, who thought it would be a good idea to ask billionaire Bill Gates in 2008 to bankroll Common Core.

Politically-connected edupreneur David Coleman– who did business in 2002 (the early days of No Child Left Behind) with Arne Duncan during Duncan’s time as CEO of Chicago Public Schools– was with Wilhoit when he asked Gates for his money.

Then, a few years later, Wilhoit moved on from CCSSO and was replaced by former Pearson associate, Chris Minnich.

Following his CCSSO retirement, Wilhoit conveniently joined Coleman’s Common-Core-centered for-profit-gone-nonprofit, Student Achievement Partners.

And Coleman moved on to become the president of an assessment company, College Board.

So, you see, Hillary, Common Core was never “not political.”

On June 12, 2015, my book on the history, development, and promotion of Common Core, Common Core Dilemma: Who Owns Our Schools?, will be released.

Clinton should read it.

But back to Iowa.

At least Hillary publicly admitted her sympathy for Common Core.

This puts her on the same side as another 2016 presidential hopeful: Republican Jeb Bush.

However, according to McCarthy’s report of Clinton’s campaign kickoff in Iowa, Clinton plans to dodge directly addressing education in her campaign:

Clinton laid out four campaign planks: 1) revitalizing economy 2) supporting families 3) getting dirty $$ out of politics 4) defending against threats seen and unseen

Surely she knows that she will be asked again and again– and again– about Common Core and its lead-balloon, federally-funded consortium tests.

Clinton will have numerous occasions to “bemoan its plight.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Common Core Ties to Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia [+video]

Razing the Bar: The bar exam protects a cartel of lawyers, not their clients by Allen Mendenhall

/in , , , , /by

The bar exam was designed and continues to operate as a mechanism for excluding the lower classes from participation in the legal services market. Elizabeth Olson of the New York Times reports that the bar exam as a professional standard “is facing a new round of scrutiny — not just from the test takers but from law school deans and some state legal establishments.”

This is a welcome development.

Testing what, exactly?

The dean of the University of San Diego School of Law, Stephen C. Ferrulo, complains to the Times that the bar exam “is an unpredictable and unacceptable impediment for accessibility to the legal profession.” Ferrulo is right: the bar exam is a barrier to entry, a form of occupational licensure that restricts access to a particular vocation and reduces market competition.

The bar exam tests the ability to take tests, not the ability to practice law. The best way to learn the legal profession is through tried experience and practical training, which, under our current system, are delayed for years, first by the requirement that would-be lawyers graduate from accredited law schools and second by the bar exam and its accompanying exam for professional fitness.

Freedom of contract

The 19th-century libertarian writer Lysander Spooner, himself a lawyer, opposed occupational licensure as a violation of the freedom of contract, arguing that, once memorialized, all agreements between mutually consenting parties “should not be subjects of legislative caprice or discretion.”

“Men may exercise at discretion their natural rights to enter into all contracts whatsoever that are in their nature obligatory,” he wrote, adding that this principle would prohibit all laws “forbidding men to make contracts by auction without license.”

In more recent decades, Milton Friedman disparaged occupational licensure as “another example of governmentally created and supported monopoly on the state level.” For Friedman, occupational licensure was no small matter. “The overthrow of the medieval guild system,” he said, was an indispensable early step in the rise of freedom in the Western world. It was a sign of the triumph of liberal ideas.… In more recent decades, there has been a retrogression, an increasing tendency for particular occupations to be restricted to individuals licensed to practice them by the state.

The bar exam is one of the most notorious examples of this “increasing tendency.”

Protecting lawyers from the poor

The burden of the bar exam falls disproportionately on low-income earners and ethnic minorities who lack the ability to pay for law school or to assume heavy debts to earn a law degree. Passing a bar exam requires expensive bar-exam study courses and exam fees, to say nothing of the costly applications and paperwork that must be completed in order to be eligible to sit for the exam. The average student-loan debt for graduates of many American law schools now exceeds $150,000, while half of all lawyers make less than $62,000 per year, a significant drop since a decade ago.

Recent law-school graduates do not have the privilege of reducing this debt after they receive their diploma; they must first spend three to four months studying for a bar exam and then, having taken the exam, must wait another three to four months for their exam results. More than half a year is lost on spending and waiting rather than earning, or at least earning the salary of a licensed attorney (some graduates work under the direction of lawyers pending the results of their bar exam).

When an individual learns that he or she has passed the bar exam, the congratulations begin with an invitation to pay a licensing fee and, in some states, a fee for a mandatory legal-education course for newly admitted attorneys. These fees must be paid before the individual can begin practicing law.

The exam is working — but for whom?

What’s most disturbing about this system is that it works precisely as it was designed to operate.  State bar associations and bar exams are products of big-city politics during the Progressive Era. Such exams existed long before the Progressive Era — Delaware’s bar exam dates back to 1763 — but not until the Progressive Era were they increasingly formalized and institutionalized and backed by the enforcement power of various states.

Threatened by immigrant workers and entrepreneurs who were determined to earn their way out of poverty and obscurity, lawyers with connections to high-level government officials in their states sought to form guilds to prohibit advertising and contingency fees and other creative methods for gaining clients and driving down the costs of legal services. Establishment lawyers felt the entrepreneurial up-and-comers were demeaning the profession and degrading the reputation of lawyers by transforming the practice of law into a business industry that admitted ethnic minorities and others who lacked rank and class. Implementing the bar exam allowed these lawyers to keep allegedly unsavory people and practices out of the legal community and to maintain the high costs of fees and services.

Protecting the consumer

In light of this ugly history, the paternalistic response of Erica Moeser to the New York Times is particularly disheartening. Moeser is the president of the National Conference of Bar Examiners. She says that the bar exam is “a basic test of fundamentals” that is justified by “protecting the consumer.” But isn’t it the consumer above all who is harmed by the high costs of legal services that are a net result of the bar exam and other anticompetitive practices among lawyers? To ask the question is to answer it. It’s also unclear how memorizing often-archaic rules to prepare for standardized, high-stakes multiple-choice tests that are administered under stressful conditions will in any way improve one’s ability to competently practice law.

The legal community and consumers of legal services would be better served by the apprenticeship model that prevailed long before the rise of the bar exam. Under this model, an aspiring attorney was tutored by experienced lawyers until he or she mastered the basics and demonstrated his or her readiness to represent clients. The high cost of law school was not a precondition; young people spent their most energetic years doing real work and gaining practical knowledge. Developing attorneys had to establish a good reputation and keep their costs and fees to a minimum to attract clients, gain trust, and maintain a living.

The rise in technology and social connectivity in our present era also means that reputation markets have improved since the early 20th century, when consumers would have had a more difficult time learning by word-of-mouth and secondhand report that one lawyer or group of lawyers consistently failed their clients — or ripped them off. Today, with services like Amazon, eBay, Uber, and Airbnb, consumers are accustomed to evaluating products and service providers online and for wide audiences.  Learning about lawyers’ professional reputations should be quick and easy, a matter of a simple Internet search.  With no bar exam, the sheer ubiquity and immediacy of reputation markets could weed out the good lawyers from the bad, thereby transferring the mode of social control from the legal cartel to the consumers themselves.

Criticism of the high costs of legal bills has not gone away in recent years, despite the drop in lawyers’ salaries and the saturation of the legal market with too many attorneys. The quickest and easiest step toward reducing legal costs is to eliminate bar exams. The public would see no marked difference in the quality of legal services if the bar exam were eliminated, because, among other things, the bar exam doesn’t teach or test how to deliver those legal services effectively.

It will take more than just the grumbling of anxious, aspiring attorneys to end bar-exam hazing rituals. That law school deans are realizing the drawbacks of the bar exam is a step in the right direction. But it will require protests from outside the legal community — from the consumers of legal services — to effect any meaningful change.

Allen Mendenhall

Allen Mendenhall is the author of Literature and Liberty: Essays in Libertarian Literary Criticism (Rowman & Littlefield / Lexington Books, 2014). Visit his website at AllenMendenhall.com.

First Anniversary of Michelle Obama’s #BringBackOurGirls Tweet — Twitter Campaign a total Failure

/in , , , /by

Still-Missing-One-Year-On-IP-500x709April 14th, 2015 marks one year since the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram kidnapped over 200 Christian girls from a school in the town of Chibok Nigeria.

The Clarion Project reports:

In the days before the kidnapping Boko Haram had massacred some 200 schoolboys at a nearby school who had been on their way to take exams.

Despite initially being sent home, the girls had been called back to their school to take their final exams when the middle-of-the-night attack occurred. The regional government had closed all of 85 of its secondary schools and sent 120,000 students home because of previous attacks.

The terrorists, arriving in trucks, vans and buses, overpowered soldiers guarding the school and herded the girls into the vehicles after burning homes and businesses in the area.

The girls were later sold into sex slavery for 2000 rials each, just $12 U.S. each.

Shortly afterwards Boko Haram leader Abu Bakr Shekau boasted in a video that he would sell the girls at the market.

Another video was released in June showing the visibly terrified girls in Muslim dress reciting passages from the Quran while a jubilant Shekau claimed they were now Muslims.

According to the Clarion Project, “Some of the girls were able to escape from Boko Haram. It was reported that roughly 60 of the girls were able to make it back home.”

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLES

Boko Haram Loyalty Pledge Gives ISIS Significant Boost

Boko Haram Infiltrates Chad in Precedent-Setting Attack

Boko Haram Kidnaps 80 in Cross-Border Attack in Cameroon

Boko Haram’s Six-Day Terror Rampage – Up to 2,000 Dead