UNITED STATES FREEDOM ARMY
END OF MONTH REPORT AS OF 08/31/2014
CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM MARCH
“A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
“When your children and grandchildren ask you what happened to America make sure you can say ‘I tried my best to stop it’.”
“An excuse is an explanation of failure.”
“Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.”
MARCH ON WASHINGTON D.C.: NO WEAPONS AT THE MUSTER POINT OR THEREAFTER.
This is our last appeal. Anyone and everyone who will be attending and has not informed us – we need to know now. The March has changed. There will no longer be a specified route for the Cross Country March.
We will hold the specified route concept in abeyance until next year when it will be reevaluated. For a variety of reasons we are cancelling the specified route for the March and each person will be responsible for getting to the Muster Point in their own way. You may construct your own March, you may fly in to D.C., take your RV or develop any scenario you so desire to reach the Muster Point to meet on September 17, 2014 (Constitution Day).
NO WEAPONS AT THE MUSTER POINT OR THEREAFTER.
The Muster Point this year will be the Springfield Mall in Springfield, VA. We will meet from 8:30 A.M. to 9:30 A.M. at the Muster Point. We will then travel from there by METRO to the Capitol. The Springfield Mall is very close to the intersection of I-95 and I-495. The Springfield Mall is bounded on the North by Franconia Road E., on the East by Frontier Road, on the South by Spring Mall Rd., and on the West by Loisdale Road. We will meet on the South section of the mall on Spring Mall Rd. about halfway between Loisdale Road and Frontier Road. From the Southeast corner of the Springfield Mall it is only about ¼ mile to the METRO Franconia-Springfield Station from where we will take the BLUE Line getting off at the METRO L’Enfant Station and walking four blocks to the meeting point. It is almost impossible to park in D.C. on a weekday and even if you can find a place it will cost you $50 to $60 to park whereas the METRO station parking is $4.75. The total cost to park and ride the METRO round trip will be about $15.
There are no public restrooms (except for emergencies) on the METRO trains or in the METRO stations. When we get to the meeting point there will be restrooms available. You have been warned! Take precautions as necessary. There is a restaurant near the Comfort Inn off Loisdale Road that serves breakfast and has restrooms. There is also a restaurant just off Franconia Road E. in the Springfield Mall.
The METRO ride to the Capitol takes about 30 minutes. We will meet on the lawn between the Capitol and the Washington Monument and directly across from the Air and Space Museum on that side of the lawn.
There are hotels/motels on Loisdale Road near the Northwest portion of the Springfield Mall. They are the Hilton Hotel, Hampton Inn, Comfort Inn and the Courtyard Marriott. The Marriott is slightly farther than the others and is near the intersection of Loisdale Road and Franconia Road W. Those of you who fly in to Reagan Airport and do not wish to rent a car may get on the Blue Line at Reagan Airport and go to the Franconia-Springfield Station and walk to one of the hotels/motels mentioned above. The walk is about ½ mile. Reservations suggested.
Dress and act like the fine patriotic people you are. If you wish to wear military apparel that is fine. If you are active duty military get permission from your commander before wearing any active duty military apparel.
NO WEAPONS AT THE MUSTER POINT OR THEREAFTER.
We are planning on making this an annual event. Be thinking of how we can get some publicity, local news coverage, TV, or whatever. Anyone may participate in this march and they do not have to be enlisted with us. We will leave the Capitol at approximately 6:00 P.M. and return to the Muster Point. At approximately 7:00 P.M. we will meet for dinner at a location near the Muster Point to be announced on September 17.
We need people to be at the Muster Point so we can go to Washington D.C. and make our complaints clear. Did you read the five quotes at the top of this report? If not, read them again. This is the time. We especially need the people from VA, MD, DE, WV, TN, NC and other nearby states to come help us on September 17. Bring any like-minded people you know with you – the more people we have the more government areas we can cover. We need to cover the Congress, Supreme Court, the IRS and as many Executive Branch offices as we can. There is no need to go to the White House since it will not do any good.
We need patriots in Washington, D.C. on September 17.
If you absolutely cannot come, we need you to pass out flyers in your local area on September 17. If you cannot pass them out on September 17 pass them out as closely as you possibly can to September 17. The best place to pass them out is at your nearest military installation – we need to remind our military of their oath. If you cannot get to a military installation pass them out at your local federal government offices. IRS offices or any federal court is good. Find a federal government agency near you and pass them out. As a last resort go to your local Post Office and pass them out. Before you go to any of these federal government entities make sure you do some reconnaissance and find out what the rules are. We want to do all of this in a perfectly legal manner and we want to pass these flyers out all over the nation.
Some of you are disappointed because we are only passing out flyers. This is what we can do at this time. If it helps you to visualize this look at the flyer as your weapon, look at the words on the flyer as your ammunition, and look at the work in D.C. as maneuvers and reconnaissance.
The flyers are extremely important to what we are attempting to accomplish. The first step is to make crystal clear what your complaint consists of in the shortest possible way. Anything over one page is too long and no one will read it. It must be short and to the point. During Operation American Spring they passed out large packets with volumes of information inside. No one will read that much information unless they are being paid to do so. We want a short printed record of our position that cannot be misunderstood.
Let us know as soon as possible if you will be coming to the Muster Point and how many you will be bringing. People do not have to be enlisted to participate.
RECRUITING UPDATE AS OF 8/31/2014:
As many of you know, we are spending our first year only recruiting. We will never stop recruiting of course, but we will have other objectives in addition to recruiting after our first year. This web site was launched on September 17 (Constitution Day), 2013 and we started recruiting about 5 days later.
TX still leads in total recruits with 10.4% of all recruits. Following TX is CA (8.0%) FL (7.2%) NC (4.2%) GA (3.8%) PA (3.4%) TN (3.3%) NY (3.3%). CA and PA both had a good month.
Based upon state population for states with over two million in population the top eight are: TN MS AL NV SC NC OK KY. OK and KY both had a good showing in August. States with under two million in population are led by WY, NH, ME, ID and NE.
This paragraph is not statistically accurate and is an approximation since some of our enlistees do not give us complete information. Our female enlistees are staying at about 4 out of every 10. About 45% of all enlistees (including some female) have military experience. We have every military grade from E-1 to E-9, W1 to W4, and O-1 to O-7. We have military with Silver Stars, Bronze Stars and Purple Hearts. We have military with all types of training and awards. Of all enlistees about 65% are in the age category 40-60. About 20% are over 60 and about 15% are under 40. Our over 60 people increased in August. We had several people enlist in August who were born in the 40s and early 50s with military experience – these are almost all Vietnam veterans. This is why we increased our over 60 percentage from 15% to 20%. We also had some younger people enlist in August and that is encouraging.
Recruiting in Nov. 2013 exceeded Oct. 2013 by 24%. Recruiting in Dec. 2013 exceeded Nov. 2013 by 43%. Recruiting in Jan. 2014 exceeded Dec. 2013 by 97%. January enlistees reached 95% of all the previous months combined. Jan. 2014 was a huge month. In February, due to various technical problems, we were only able to recruit for 18 of the 28 days. It is therefore unfair to compare February to any other month. Still, in February and despite all the setbacks, we exceeded our recruiting totals for every other previous month except January 2014 – those results were extremely encouraging. March 2014 was our seventh largest recruiting month. April 2014 was our third largest recruiting month. May 2014 was our sixth largest recruiting month. June 2014 was our fourth largest recruiting month almost reaching April 2014. We are extremely encouraged by the May and June results since often in late May and early June people will not participate due to graduations, vacations and weddings. July 2014 was our largest recruiting month topping January 2014 by 20%. July 3, 4, 5 were our 4th, 5th, and 3rd largest recruiting days ever as the patriotic spirit was kindled by Independence Day. August, in spite of several minor technical problems that hampered us parts of the entire month, was our fifth largest recruiting month just missing June.
During the first five full months after September 2013 we had already surpassed our recruiting goal for the entire first year. Thank you to each one of you for your courage and patriotism. We do not give out strength reports but we can tell everyone that our total strength is >1,000 and <10,000.
We are now in all 50 states, and 11 other countries. We also have enlistees in Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico. Most of the people enlisted in other countries are Americans living outside the United States. We are like Washington’s Continental Army, however, in the sense that we will welcome help from anyone who is a patriot and wants to see our Constitution restored.
What is the most encouraging are the many people who have enlisted from small towns in America. This is a small town revolution – the people who have not been heard are beginning to speak up. While we have enlistees in many major cities, it is the voices in small town America that ring loudest. The Founder has been in all 50 states and has never heard of many of these cities so we have been looking them up on the Internet – impressive. Find the people in your small town who are fed up and get them enlisted and then form a unit in your town.
As a change of pace this month (and to see if you are paying attention) we have listed below the cities in each state that have the most people enlisted. Many of these are as expected but you will also find some surprises in the list.
Wasilla AK Huntsville AL Hot Springs AR Phoenix AZ
San Diego CA Denver CO New Haven CT Frankford DE
Jacksonville FL Atlanta GA Honolulu HI Des Moines IA
Meridian ID Chicago IL Indianapolis IN Wichita KS
Louisville KY Shreveport LA Boston MA Baltimore MD
Portland ME Lansing MI St. Paul MN St. Louis MO
Laurel MS Butte MT Raleigh NC Richardton ND
Omaha NE Concord NH Toms River NJ Albuquerque NM
Las Vegas NV Rochester NY Toledo OH Tulsa OK
Portland OR Philadelphia PA Wakefield RI Anderson SC
Rapid City SD Nashville TN San Antonio TX Salt Lake City UT
Virginia Beach VA Plainfield VT Spokane WA Milwaukee WI
Princeton WV Greybull WY
Notes: In the event of a tie we awarded it to the city with the smallest population. New York City, NY would have been the largest in NY except many people signed up by borough and we didn’t add all the boroughs together as one group.
The United States Freedom Army is concerned about continuous constitutional violations in the five areas listed in the attached flyer. These violations are listed in their relative order of importance and are so long running and egregious they can no longer be condoned. The flyer attached to this report delineates these grievances. You may use it to make copies and pass it out at any meetings, at the VFW Hall, post it on billboards, give it to friends, or whatever you may decide.
NOTE: On September 17 we will be passing out these flyers in Washington, D.C. We need as many people there as possible so we can reach as many people as possible in the three branches of our federal government. We need to know as soon as possible how many people will be at the Muster Point on September 17. If you cannot participate with us in Washington D.C. we will have other things for you to do in your local area on that day. See the section above “Cross Country March on Washington D.C.” for more updated information.
We realize that the information in the note above will disappoint some people but it is the best we can do at this point in time given all the circumstances. We want to do the best we can to achieve distribution of our flyer and make the feelings of everyone regarding the abuse of the United States Constitution known.
The flyer itself has a camouflage background and a gold stripe but it was designed so it can be copied in either color or black & white. When copied in black & white it loses the camouflage and gold stripe but is still effective and is very inexpensive to copy in black & white. The words are what count and the words are what we wish to communicate.
PLEASE NOTE AGAIN: THE FLYER FOR YOUR USE IS IN THE LINK BELOW
The website post this month will be about the Constitutional Freedom March. We want people who log on to the website to know that an event is taking place and to encourage them to enlist and participate.
We support all efforts by any organization to “resurrect” the United States Constitution. Whenever we hear about any effort to restore the Constitution we will record it here.
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
We are a group of people who want to see the United States Constitution followed and, by implication, this leviathan federal government dismantled. We intend to follow all laws and proceed peacefully to attempt to achieve this goal. This is the thrust of our effort at this time.
We are not at present a militia but circumstances in the future may alter that situation. What we do or become depends upon what occurs in Washington, D.C. and what occurs in D.C. may alter our goals and approach. Since we cannot see into the future it is not possible to say what may be required as time passes and events unfold.
THIS IS A REAL ARMY! WE ARE TOGETHER! THE CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN ABUSED AND IGNORED FOR TOO LONG! WE WANT ALL THREE BRANCHES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO START READING IT!
YOU MAY FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO ANYONE YOU WISH.
UNITED STATES FREEDOM ARMY
WE SIGN IN BOLD LETTERS
FOR FLYER GO TO LINK BELOW:
“We Don’t Understand Real Evil, Organized Evil, Very Well. This is Evil Incarnate.”
Baker’s quote of Crocker, who served as President George W. Bush’s Ambassador to Iraq and President Obama’s Ambassador to Afghanistan, is worth reading in its entirety:
“This is about America’s national security,” said Ryan Crocker, who was ambassador to Iraq under Mr. Bush and to Afghanistan under Mr. Obama. “We don’t understand real evil, organized evil, very well. This is evil incarnate. People like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,” the ISIS leader, “have been in a fight for a decade. They are messianic in their vision, and they are not going to stop.”
This is the chilling reality of the war in which we continue to find ourselves, a reality that the American left –of which the president is the condensed, 100 percent concentrated version– refuses to believe: that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, or Hamas, or any Islamist not named bin Laden is a threat to the United States. The president and his ideological allies especially refuse to consider any facts that are inconsistent with their conclusions, even facts that line up as direct threats to America, because they’d rather live in ignorance and danger than validate in any way W’s view of the world and of the crucial necessity of staying involved in the Islamic world, helping our genuine allies and fighting our genuine enemies there.
That was the terribly difficult “middle ground” that Bush and Vice President Cheney knew the U.S. had to occupy, possessing as they did (and still do) a perspective that understood that we and the rest of the West are not at war with Islam but with a virulent, radicalized and very violent strain of Sunni Islamist extremism, every bit the match of the Khomeinism that gripped Iran in the late 1970s and holds on to it still. This latter terror was not opposed by Jimmy Carter and nearly 40 years later still threatens the West in new and more menacing ways. The Sunni equivalent nested first in Afghanistan, was beaten back there, in western Iraq in the person of Zarqawi, and across the globe until, after the election of President Obama, it was granted a reprieve and regrouped and reorganized, and is growing fast and very strong now in western Iraq and other places around the globe.
The left will want to argue that Bush created ISIS, an absurd but predictable last ditch effort to build a weak wall against the reality that people like Lawrence Wright and Bernard Lewis have been arguing against for more than a decade. Indeed, Baker found the pitch perfect representative of the school of pretend-it-doesn’t-exist to quote for his piece:
“This is a slippery slope if I ever saw one,” said Phyllis Bennis, a scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, a research organization for peace activists. “Whatever else we may have learned from the president’s ‘dumb war,’ it should be eminently clear that we cannot bomb Islamist extremists into submission or disappearance. Every bomb recruits more supporters.”
At the core of Obama’s thinking is that American military involvement cannot be the primary instrument to achieve the new equilibrium that the region so desperately needs. And yet thoughts of a pacific equilibrium are far from anyone’s mind in the real, existing Middle East. In the 2012 campaign, Obama spoke not only of killing Osama bin Laden; he also said that Al Qaeda had been “decimated.” I pointed out that the flag of Al Qaeda is now flying in Falluja, in Iraq, and among various rebel factions in Syria; Al Qaeda has asserted a presence in parts of Africa, too.
“The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,” Obama said, resorting to an uncharacteristically flip analogy. “I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.
“Let’s just keep in mind, Falluja is a profoundly conservative Sunni city in a country that, independent of anything we do, is deeply divided along sectarian lines. And how we think about terrorism has to be defined and specific enough that it doesn’t lead us to think that any horrible actions that take place around the world that are motivated in part by an extremist Islamic ideology are a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into.”
He went on, “You have a schism between Sunni and Shia throughout the region that is profound. Some of it is directed or abetted by states who are in contests for power there. You have failed states that are just dysfunctional, and various warlords and thugs and criminals are trying to gain leverage or a foothold so that they can control resources, populations, territory. . . . And failed states, conflict, refugees, displacement—all that stuff has an impact on our long-term security. But how we approach those problems and the resources that we direct toward those problems is not going to be exactly the same as how we think about a transnational network of operatives who want to blow up the World Trade Center. We have to be able to distinguish between these problems analytically, so that we’re not using a pliers where we need a hammer, or we’re not using a battalion when what we should be doing is partnering with the local government to train their police force more effectively, improve their intelligence capacities.”
This point of view cannot be reconciled with the facts on the ground in western Iraq, or Nigeria, or Mali, or Somalia or indeed in Gaza. It must oblige the president o almost double over with the pains of cognitive dissonance when confronted with the rampage and slaughters of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. As Remnick pointed out, this worldview is “the core” of the president’s understanding of the world, the equivalent of Reagan’s view of the Soviet Union as an “evil empire.” It is the Rosetta Stone to understanding everything President Obama has done –and mostly not done– since becoming president in 2009. He departs from it only when the televised pictures he and his advisors see –whether from Libya as Qaddafi marched towards Benghazi with the intention of slaughtering his opponents or of ISIS trapping children on mountains– persuade him that, if only because the poor, emotional American people won’t put up with such picture, he has to pretend to do something.
It isn’t really “appeasement” which at least recognized evil and tried to buy it off, though it issues in policies that look like those that were produced by appeasement. It is rather a child-like anti-intellectualism, an academic’s withdrawal from reality into endless faculty meetings where debates about parking spaces and tenure displace the reality of the world outside of the 90-minute meeting committee process.
Because this worldview is fully in control of the American military, national security and diplomatic powers, we will do nothing about al-Baghdadi for at least two more years when, hopefully, an heir to Reagan arrives to reintroduce American power and influence in the world. American power does not always and everywhere mean military power, but it does include it and it ought to be used, especially when a long standing ally like the Kurds are threatened by barbarians at their gates, and not in a haphazard, half-gesture of concern from the skies. A reflexive horror of “boots on the ground” gripped Carter as it grips Obama, and the president who follows Obama will have to reintroduce the world to the prospect of dealing with American military might.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi understands he is up against a paper mache president right now, and is acting accordingly, as are his arch enemies –the mullahs in Iran– and their half-brothers in Hamas and their generous uncle in Moscow. As do the Chinese. The good news is that there are Abbotts and Harpers about, and especially Netanyahu. They have their counterparts within the GOP and those men and women are finding their voices. Even this pretend-to-be-president president may be obliged to act if the ISIS fanatics go too far and too fast. They lack brakes because they believe God is on their side. What they might do that might wake even this president is pretty horrible to consider but if you have seen what they are doing in Iraq, you must understand they’d gladly do whatever they could to deeply injure America again.
It is an ongoing, never-ending-in-our-lifetimes global conflict and it isn’t going away, no matter how many iPads we produce or where LeBron plays or how Johnny Football does. I like most Americans treasure my diversions from the reality of this awful situation, but presidents don’t get to live a life disconnected from them and deeply connected to fairways and greens.
It is hard to imagine how far ISIS will have spread its evil by the time January 2017 brings a new resolve to the White House. Hopefully the seriousness of this situation adds to the repudiation of the president and his party of go-along yes men and women at the polls in November, and a rebuilding of the Department of Defense can begin in earnest in January 2015.
It didn’t have to be this way. W’s generals and their troops won the war in Iraq. President Obama booted away the peace and the intricate coalition that held it in place when he abruptly pulled a residual American force from Iraq in 2011. This is a sequel to what happened in Vietnam in 1975. This time there are no boat people because there is no ocean and there are no boats. Just slaughter. And this time the enemy isn’t going to stop with conquering their country and incursions into a few local countries.
“This is evil incarnate,” as Ambassador Crocker put it so succinctly and well. Evil incarnate doesn’t fill out brackets, or rest or grow weary. It marches on and sneers at the delusions of its enemies who don’t even know they are the target.
MY TWO SENSE
Normally I would insert the direct link to this post of Hugh Hewitt’s, however, due to malfunctioning that was impossible. This article is easily found on the “Townhall.com” website.
Biometric passports (Photo credit: OwenBlacker)
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Food Stamp Biometric I.D. Program Introduced Under Guise of Fraud Reduction
At the beginning of 2012, I wrote an article entitled “Cashless Society: India Implements First Biometric ID Program for all of its 1.2 Billion Residents,” where I detailed the Indian UID program being implemented for purposes of “cutting down on corruption” in the distribution of social welfare benefits.
At the time, I wrote in the introduction to the article, “However, current events in India should serve not just as a warning, but also as a foreshadowing of the events to come in the Western world, specifically the United States.” But, while this statement was clearly not an outlandish claim, the fact is that the Indian UID is very similar to programs which are in operation all over the country and that have been operating since at least late 1998.
In some areas like Los Angeles, New York, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Texas, Arizona, New Jersey, and California, the slow emergence of the UID-style program for food stamp recipients is clearly evident. Many other areas of the country are considering the implementation of the program as well such as Florida, Maryland, Michigan, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania.
Like the Indian UID program, the roll-out of the American system will require the fingerprinting of individuals receiving food stamps under the guise of reducing fraud. Yet, like the early status of the Japanese version of the UID, the Juki-Net, the emerging American system is currently being implemented on a state-wide or local basis (county or city), with no administration by the US Federal government.
However, that is not to say that the Feds have no interest in the program. Indeed, as reported on the USDA’s own website, in May-June 1998, the USDA actually conducted interviews with representatives of human service agencies in most of these states to determine their feasibility in terms of reducing food stamp fraud.
Or, at least, that was the stated purpose of the interviews. The real reason for conducting the brief studies on the feasibility of the program, however, might actually have been to determine whether or not the general public is ready for the roll-out of the American UID on a nationwide basis in the near future.
Regardless, the results of the interviews are quite interesting in their own right, even as they are presented by the USDA. In fact, the USDA is rather open about the lack of success of the programs in terms of fraud reduction.
In the report, which is entitled, “Use of Biometric Identification Technology to Reduce Fraud in the Food Stamp Program: Final Report,” it is stated that “Finger imaging has been readily integrated into the human services programs of the affected states. However, despite the positive reaction to finger imaging from the State officials we interviewed, there is still uncertainty regarding the extent to which this technology can reduce multiple participation fraud.”
In the section entitled, “Finger Imaging and Fraud Reduction,” the report reads “Assessing the ability of finger imaging to reduce fraud is difficult because the amount of fraud caused by duplicate participation in welfare programs is unknown, and because changes in caseload after the introduction of finger imaging cannot be interpreted unambiguously as reduction of fraud.”
In fact, the report estimates that the finger imaging technologies, at best, detected only 1 case of duplicate applications in every 5,000.
With these statements in mind, one would be justified in wondering whether or not the question of multiple participation in food stamp programs is even that serious of a question to begin with. Obviously, the premise of the fingerprinting program is built on the assumption that such fraud is occurring. However, neither the local, state, or federal government can provide any actual numbers or credible evidence of such events at least so far as this report is concerned.
Yet, what is more striking than the effects on alleged and supposed cases of fraud is the information relating to the reaction of the general public who were fingerprinted as well as that of the staff doing the fingerprinting.
At this point, it should be noted that the state of Illinois has tested retina scanning technology while Massachusetts utilized facial recognition.
Nevertheless, the report is clear that opposition to the program from both food stamp recipients and those operating the finger printing technology was virtually non-existent. In all cases, the programs actually went better than expected and without the negative responses that the agencies had anticipated. The report states,
The States with operating systems reported that implementation of new biometric client identification procedures had a negligible impact on operations at the local office level. In general, States also reported that the problems and obstacles encountered in operating their respective projects are not unlike those encountered in demonstrating any new technology or procedural modification. These States also reported that their systems and procedures were implemented without unexpected difficulty and were rapidly institutionalized. All the States confronted a range of basic physical space and logistical issues, including where to situate the new equipment, how to appropriately alter job descriptions, who to reassign or hire to handle the new procedures, and how to adjust the flow of clients and paperwork most efficiently. However, none reported any particularly noteworthy difficulties. States reported that clients have been cooperative and accepting of the technology. [Emphasis added.]
Of course, one must always take statements made by government agencies pushing an agenda such as biometric identification with a grain of salt, as many of these agencies are notorious for claiming public support for a project merely as a public relations strategy. This means that many agencies, like the TSA for instance, will claim the vast majority of the public is satisfied with the new procedures, thus insisting that those who oppose it are in a distinct and radical minority, which then creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.
However, considering the levels to which American culture has sunk in recent years, particularly in the areas of privacy and civil liberties, the fact that fingerprinting for the purpose of receiving food stamps does not excite opposition and rage on the part of the recipients is not surprising either.
Indeed, the report posted to the USDA website does not appear to be acting as a propaganda piece. Rather, it’s matter-of-fact statement of results from an interview process engaged in between the federal government and the test bed states that have enacted a soon-to-go-national program of fingerprinting for food stamps.
Regardless, the report does admit that some concerns do exist amongst the general public regarding the fingerprinting program. It states
Clients do have some concerns about finger imaging. Roughly 15% expressed concerns in the State surveys and interviews conducted to evaluate finger-imaging programs. These concerns center on issues of privacy, unjust treatment of poor people, inconvenience, and fear of inter-agency sharing.
Although admitting that there is “little data on which to estimate the size deterrence effect,” the report insists that there is also “little evidence that clients discontinued benefits because they were intimidated by the finger-image requirement.”
The report reads,
Based on the results from client surveys in five States, a substantial majority of clients had no objection to finger imaging and thought it was a good idea.
. . . . .
Interviews with former clients in Texas found that only two of the 78 former food stamp recipients (both of whom had refused to be imaged) attributed their loss of benefits to finger imaging. Similar interviews in Los Angeles County found that, of those former clients interviewed, no one who refused to be finger imaged expressed a concern with the process.
Interestingly enough, since the USDA report was written and published in December 1999, there has been a move to dismantle some of the fingerprinting programs in place all across the country. In fact, as of 2012, Arizona and New York City are the only locations in the country who mandate that food stamp recipients fingerprint as a part of the application process. Soon, if Gov. Cuomo’s new proposals for the program are able to move forward, Arizona may find itself alone in this regard.
However, one would be wise to consider the implementation of these programs in their select locations as nothing more than test projects. Keep in mind, some of the locales not only used fingerprinting technologies but also retinal scans and facial recognition, a technology that has received a massive push forward in recent months via corporations, law enforcement, and the corporate media.
With the constant harping by reactionary politicians and “right wing” commentators about social safety net benefits such as food stamps being abused, the push to more accurately identify the recipients and assure that the allegedly rampant fraud is ended is not likely to wane any time soon.
Thus, coupled with the official results of fingerprinting programs such as those mentioned above are negligible at best, it is not out of the realm of possibility to see calls for both a tightening and enhancement of fraud-reducing mechanisms to soon be announced.
Like in India and Japan, these calls might very well result in the combination of various types of technology and methods of accumulating data. With the record of fingerprinting still out for adequate assessment, the inclusion of facial recognition and retinal scans might then be introduced to work in tandem with social security numbers and other relevant government-data to provide American citizens seeking assistance with their very own Unique Identification Number and identification profile.
Although some areas are backing off on their fingerprinting schemes, we cannot be lulled into complacency or into the belief that biometric identification techniques on the national scale are beginning to fade. In fact, the opposite is actually the case. While some states and cities are apparently dismantling their fingerprinting systems for access to food stamps, the fact is that the biometric identification aspect will undoubtedly reappear.
Unfortunately, when it does, it will almost assuredly be unveiled in a much more advanced and all-encompassing form. By then, the concept of biometric identification will have had plenty of time to gradually become more accepted in the minds of the general public. Thus, it is paramount that those of us who are aware of the potential for this program to return to take advantage of the small window of opportunity we have been presented with in order to mount some manner of opposition.
Read other articles by Brandon Turbeville here.
Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of three books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, and Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident. Turbeville has published over 175 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.
Egypt’s Morsy gives himself new powers, orders retrials in protester deaths
By Mohamed Fadel Fahmy and Jason Hanna, CNN
updated 7:37 AM EST, Fri November 23, 2012
Egypt’s Morsy grants himself more power
Morsy: Any decisions until new constitution is established can’t be overturned
Move could give him unchecked power for months; protesters call him ‘dictator’
Declaration comes on 4th day of protests against president and the Muslim Brotherhood
Hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood supporters demonstrate for Morsy on Thursday
(CNN) — Egyptian President Mohamed Morsy has issued an order preventing any court from overturning his decisions, essentially allowing him to run the country unchecked until a new constitution is drafted, his spokesman announced on state TV Thursday.
Morsy also ordered retrials and reinvestigations in the deaths of protesters during last year’s uprising against strongman Hosni Mubarak. That could lead to the reprosecution of Mubarak, currently serving a life prison term, and several acquitted officials who served under him.
The order for retrials could please some Egyptians who’ve expressed disappointment that security officers and others have escaped legal consequences over last year’s protester crackdown by the Mubarak regime.
Some demonstrators in Cairo, however — protesting for a fourth day against Morsy and the growing influence of the Muslim Brotherhood — expressed anger over his assumption of more power. About 2,000 people protested Thursday night in and around Tahrir Square, with some chanting “birth of a new pharaoh” and “Morsy the dictator.”
Political rivals also expressed dismay Thursday evening.
Egypt’s role in Israel-Gaza cease-fire
Learning about Egypt’s Morsy
Egypt’s Morsy ‘retires’ military brass
Egypt: What power shift means for U.S.
“Morsy is taking over the executive, judicial, and legislative powers in his hands, and this is a dangerous path,” said the Twitter account of Hamdeen Sabahy, a former presidential candidate.
“Morsy has issued immunity to any laws he issues. This is the birth of a new dictator,” tweeted Khaled Ali, another former presidential candidate.
Hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood supporters, meanwhile, stood outside the general prosecutor’s office Thursday to support Morsy’s decrees.
Morsy declared that any laws or decrees he’s made since he took office June 30, and until a new constitution is put in place, are final and cannot be overturned or appealed, his spokesman said on state-run TV.
Morsy also declared that a 100-man council drafting a new constitution, plus the upper house of parliament, cannot be dissolved. And he granted the council two more months to finish a draft constitution, meaning the panel has six months to finish.
That means Morsy, who earlier this year took over legislative powers from the military council that ruled after Mubarak’s ouster, could have at least six months of unchecked rule by decree. The draft constitution would go to a referendum before it is finalized.
He also fired Egypt’s general prosecutor, who had taken criticism from protesters in recent months because they believe prosecutions over demonstrators’ deaths were insufficient. Morsy swore in Talaat Ibrahim as the new general prosecutor on Thursday.
Morsy’s moves come three days after the start of violent protests in central Cairo, largely by people angry at Morsy’s government and the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist movement to which Morsy belongs. They also come amid turmoil in the constitution panel, which has been torn between conservatives wanting the constitution to mandate Egypt be governed by Islam’s Sharia law, and moderates and liberals who want it to say that Egypt be governed by principles of Sharia.
The announcements also come a day after Morsy helped broker a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas after an eight-day conflict between the sides.
On Wednesday, Morsy released a statement saying he had canceled a planned trip to Pakistan — sending his vice president instead — to concentrate on internal political developments and the Israel-Hamas cease-fire.
Thousands of people have protested in Cairo since Monday, chanting — for the first time since Morsy took office — for the toppling of the regime. Some in Tahrir Square held posters saying “No to the Brotherhood,” and banned Brotherhood members from entering the square.
Some protesters have thrown Molotov cocktails and rocks at police, who have fired tear gas and birdshot at the demonstrators.
One person has died and at least 80 have been injured in the protests, according to Mohamed Sultan, a Health Ministry spokesman.
Nine police officers have been injured in the clashes so far, said Alaa Mahmoud, an Interior Ministry spokesman.
Dozens of protesters have been arrested, said Interior Minister Ahmed Gamal El Din. Cameras have been installed around Tahrir Square, its side streets and the Interior Ministry in an effort to determine the identities of people attacking security forces, he announced.
More demonstrations are scheduled in Tahrir Square on Friday.
Fekri Mahkroub, a criminal court judge in Egypt’s Ismailia district, said Thursday night that he was “sad because what President Morsy did is an assault on the legislative and judicial system.”
“He defies anything the revolution stands for, and his actions are an insult to us as judges,” Mahkroub said. “Declaring that his laws cannot be questioned is unacceptable, and we may see a general judicial strike.”
Eric Trager, a fellow with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said Morsy not only is preventing the judiciary from overruling his decisions, but he also has “insulated the Muslim-Brotherhood-dominated (constitutional panel) from judicial oversight.”
Depsite the protests in Cairo and objections from political rivals, Morsy — elected with nearly 52% of the vote in a June runoff against former Prime Minister Ahmed Shafik — enjoys the “best mobilizing capability in the country” in the Muslim Brotherhood, Trager said.
“If there’s a nationwide movement against this, you’ll (also) have a nationwide movement for it,” Trager said.
After he was elected, Morsy took legislative control from the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which had ruled after Mubarak was deposed. Earlier, the council dissolved parliament’s lower house, saying parliamentary elections that began in November 2011 were unconstitutional. Morsy indicated in June he would call back parliament, but Egypt’s high administrative court upheld the dissolution.
Mubarak and his former Interior Minister Habib El Adly were convicted and sentenced in June to life in prison on charges relating to the deaths of hundreds of protesters after a 10-month trial, while six former government aides were acquitted. Some Egyptians protested the sentences and acquittals.
Morsy, who still was running for office, said at the time that he would initiate new investigations if elected.
About 840 people died and more than 6,000 others were injured in last year’s 18-day uprising, according to Amnesty International.
NO WONDER THESE GUYS ARE SO MIXED UP. THERE ARE TOO MANY FORKS IN THE PIE! Seals of members of the US Intelligence Community (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Top GOP lawmaker pressures Clapper to explain altered talking points on Libya
The Republican chairman of the Ho
DAVID WILD-MAN PETRAEUS! EVERY WOMAN’S DREAMBOAT GUY! HUH? Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
use Intelligence Committee is demanding an immediate explanation from the nation’s top intelligence official, James Clapper, for what the chairman says were inconsistent statements to Congress and to the public on who was behind changes to the CIA talking points on the Libya consulate attack in September.
Critics say the Obama administration initially minimized the role of terrorism despite evidence of a coordinated attack on the consulate in Benghazi. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the assault.
Testimony last week on Capitol Hill raised additional questions about the administration’s changing story on the attack, putting new pressure on Clapper, the director of national intelligence.
Rep. Mike Rogers, the Intelligence Committee chairman, “looks forward to discussing this new explanation with Director Clapper as soon as possible to understand how (his office) reached this conclusion and why leaders of the intelligence community testified late last week that they were unaware of who changed the talking points,” Rogers spokeswoman Susan Phalen told Fox News.
Fox News was told by one source that Clapper, in a classified session on Thursday, was “unequivocal, and without hesitation insisted the changes were made outside the Intelligence community. He didn’t know who but was emphatic he would find out.”
A day later, former CIA Director David Petraeus also stated changes were made after his agency drafted the talking points, adding no one imagined how changing the language would end up being such a big deal.
But late Monday night, Clapper spokesman Shawn Turner said in a series of briefings for reporters that the intelligence community was solely responsible for “substantive” changes to the talking points, which were finalized on Sept. 15 – four days after the attack and one day before U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s controversial appearance on five Sunday talk shows, when she described the attack as spontaneous violence that grew out of protests of an anti-Islam film.
Along with changing “al Qaeda” to “extremists,” the new talking points timeline stated the FBI apparently wanted a change in the language from the U.S. “knew” Islamic extremists were involved to “there are indications.”
Rep. Adam Schiff of California, a senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News the timeline reinforces his view the changes were driven by security considerations, not politics.
“To anyone who was listening, it was clear from General Petraeus and other intelligence officials who testified last week that the talking points were amended to protect classified sources of information and were not subject to any political spin by the White House or ambassador to the U.N.,” Schiff said.
John Bolton, a U.S. ambassador to the U.N. in the George W. Bush administration, said Clapper must now explain the genesis of the administration’s initial statements, which blamed a video for sparking a demonstration that was hijacked by terrorists, when the available and immediate raw intelligence strongly supported a pre-meditated terrorist attack.
“I think Clapper has to say publicly whether he advocated the YouTube video theory, whether he pressed it on the White House and others in the intelligence community,” Bolton told Fox News. “And if so, did he do that at the direction of the White House?”
The new timeline on the talking points – released by Clapper’s office – does not address another inconsistency, first reported by the Daily Beast. After the Sept. 11 attack, diplomatic security agents were evacuated from the Benghazi consulate to Ramstein Air Base in Germany. By Sept. 14, two days before Rice’s Sunday show appearances and one day before the talking points were finalized, the FBI had learned from consulate agents that there was no demonstration when the attack unfolded. This single data point appeared to gut the administration’s anti-video protest theory.
Fox News asked the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for specifics on the timeline, as well as for comment on Rep. Rogers’ claims, but calls and emails were not immediately returned.
A Capitol Hill source who asked not to be identified, given the sensitive nature of the topic, noted this seemed to be the second time Clapper’s office had “fallen on its sword” in the Benghazi matter. On Sept. 28, in a statement released late in the day, spokesman Turner explained their “evolving” understand of the assault. Turner said the initial view, that the attack spontaneously grew out of a protest of the anti-Islam video, was now abandoned, and the evidence supported a “deliberate and organized terrorist assault.”
The CIA prepared a series of leaflets for use in Afghanistan Original caption: :”AL Qaeda do you think that you are safe…” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
White House Changed CIA Talking Points
Hill intel leaders confirm CIA guidance on Benghazi attack deleted terror references
November 19, 2012 5:00 am
Senior Republican members of Congress confirmed Sunday that the Obama administration changed CIA guidance to senior officials that had identified the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi as an al Qaeda attack.
“The intelligence community had it right, and they had it right early,” said chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Mich.).
The CIA “talking points” on Benghazi initially identified the attackers as al Qaeda or al Qaeda-linked terrorists but senior administration officials removed the reference, Rogers said on NBC’s Meet the Press.
Meanwhile, White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters traveling with the president on Saturday that the White House made only minor changes in the first comments by a White House official on the Benghazi security scandal.
“We were provided with points by the intelligence community that represented their assessment,” Rhodes said on Air Force One en route to Asia. “The only edit made by the White House was the factual edit about how to refer to the facility.”
Rhodes insisted that the word “consulate” was changed to “diplomatic facility” to reflect the fact that the compound was not involved in traditional consular activities.
“Other than that, we were guided by the points that were provided by the intelligence community,” he said. “So I can’t speak to any other edits that may have been made.”
Rogers said the talking points were reviewed by a “deputies committee” of senior officials that is “populated by appointees from the administration. That’s where the narrative changed.”
Rogers was commenting on closed-door testimony Friday by former CIA Director David Petraeus who revealed the talking points were changed, apparently to play down the terrorist connection. Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.), an intelligence committee member, first disclosed this information shortly after the Petraeus hearing.
United States Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice in five Sunday talk show interviews used the altered talking points that emphasized falsely that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim video.
The attack resulted in the death of four Americans including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.
Vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.) also said on Fox News Sunday that Petraeus said the initial talking points were altered and that senior intelligence and security officials did not know who was behind the changes.
“At the hearing we had on Thursday and Friday, we had every leader of the intelligence community there, including folks from the State Department, the FBI, everybody there was asked, do you know who made these changes? And nobody knew,” Chambliss said.
“The only entity that reviewed the talking points that was not there was the White House. I don’t know whether what they said yesterday is exactly right or not. But, what I do know is that every member of the intelligence community says that references to al Qaeda were removed by somebody and they don’t know who. And references to attacks versus demonstrations were removed by somebody.”
Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) disagreed with Rogers and said allegations the White House changed the talking points were false. “So there was only one thing that was changed and I’ve checked into this, I believe it to be absolute fact and that was the word ‘consulate’ was changed to ‘mission,’” she said on the same program.
“That’s the only change that anyone in the White House made and I have checked this out,” she said.
But Rogers, a former FBI agent, insisted the White House was behind the change.
“What was said and as I conclude the course of that investigation was that at some point those so-called talking points, in other words, the narrative of how we would call this event, went up to what’s called the ‘deputies’ meeting,” he said. “When asked, there was no one in the professional intelligence community could tell us who changed what. So there goes the disconnect. So the intelligence community said this was a terrorist act.”
Rogers’ comments also bolster statements made by U.S. intelligence officials to the Free Beacon in early October that intelligence indicating an al Qaeda link to the attack was deliberately cut out by senior administration officials.
One intelligence official said the reason for the omission of the information on al Qaeda was that the intelligence contradicted President Barack Obama’s statement at the Democratic National Convention weeks earlier that al Qaeda was “on the path to defeat.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) agreed on Sunday, saying on Meet the Press that he believes the intelligence indicating an al Qaeda link to the Benghazi attack was removed for political reasons.
“I think one of the reasons that Susan Rice told the story she did, if the truth came out a few weeks before the election that our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, had been overrun by an al Qaeda-sponsored or -affiliated militia, that destroys the narrative we’ve been hearing for months that al Qaeda has been dismantled, bin Laden’s dead, we’re safer,” Graham said on Meet the Press.
“And Susan Rice just did not say it was the results of a mob spawned by a video like Cairo,” he said. “She actually said on Face the Nation, I want to remind the American people, this president promised to go after bin Laden, refocus on al Qaeda. He got bin Laden, al Qaeda’s been dismantled, and the truth of the matter is nothing could have been further from the truth, and the story she told reinforced a political narrative helpful to the president.”
Asked if there was a “cover up” on Benghazi, Rogers said, “Well, this is what I know: I know the narrative was wrong, and the intelligence was right. Now, getting between here and there, I think you have to be careful about making those accusations. I think you should have to prove it. As an old FBI agent, you should prove it first.”
Rogers defended the intelligence assessment from the time of the attack as identifying the strike as “an act of terrorism.”
“There were some policy decisions made based on the narrative that was not consistent with the intelligence that we had,” he said. “That’s my concern and we need to say hey, we need to figure out how that happened and let’s make sure this doesn’t happen again.”
Feinstein said she did not believe there was a cover up.
The Benghazi attack received little attention by major news media outlets prior to Nov. 6. The New York Times carried few stories about the attack and devoted few resources to covering the story in what critics say was an apparent effort to play down a major security failure by the Obama administration.
Rogers said the failure to provide adequate protection for diplomats and intelligence personnel in Benghazi was “a catastrophic failure in recognizing that threat posture clearly on that day.”
On the sex scandal that led to Petreaus’ resignation and has also ensnared the current U.S. commander in Afghanistan Gen. John Allen, Rogers said Petraeus “did the right thing” in stepping down.
A new CIA officer that failed to disclose an extramarital affair would be fired, he said. “Why? Because it’s a counterintelligence threat to someone who has very sensitive and classified information,” Rogers said.
Rogers also said he is “not sure” Obama was not informed of the FBI investigation of Petraeus before the Nov. 6 election. The president insisted he did not know until after the election.
Rogers said that the issue needs to be investigated.
Feinstein said she believed the president was kept out of the loop on the Petraeus probe which began with an investigation of cyber harassment of Tampa socialite Jill Kelley.
“I spoke to the attorney general,” she said. “He explained the process that the FBI carried out and there’s a reason for that. And the reason for not disclosing it [to the president] is so that there is no manipulation; that there is an ability to move ahead without any political weighing in on any side.”
English: The ‘E’ Centre A sustainable development near Ollerton. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The Agenda 21 for culture is the first document with worldwide mission that advocates establishing the groundwork of an undertaking by cities and local governments for cultural development. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
SOUNDS LIKE SCIENCE FICTION…OR SOME CONSPIRACY THEORY…BUT IT ISN’T.
UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all information, and all human beings in the world. INVENTORY AND CONTROL.
Have you wondered where these terms ‘sustainability’ and ‘smart growth’ and ‘high density urban mixed use development’ came from? Doesn’t it seem like about 10 years ago you’d never heard of them and now everything seems to include these concepts? Is that just a coincidence? That every town and county and state and nation in the world would be changing their land use/planning codes and government policies to align themselves with…what?
First, before I get going, I want to say that yes, I know it’s a small world and it takes a village and we’re all one planet etc. I also know that we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and that as cumbersome as that can be sometimes (Donald Rumsfeld said that the Chinese have it easy; they don’t have to ask their people if they agree. And Bush Junior said that it would be great to have a dictator as long as he was the dictator), we have a three branch government and the Bill of Rights, Constitution, and self-determination. This is one of the reasons why people want to come to the US, right? We don’t have Tiananmen Square here, generally speaking (yes, I remember Kent State–not the same, and yes, an outrage.) So I’m not against making certain issues a priority, such as mindful energy use, alternative energy sponsorship, recycling/reuse, and sensitivity to all living creatures.
But then you have UN Agenda 21. What is it? See our videos and radio shows at the bottom of this page (or search YouTube for Rosa Koire) or buy BEHIND THE GREEN MASK: U.N. Agenda 21 by Rosa Koire click here
CLICK TO PRINT OUT FLYER: WHY IS EVERYONE TALKING ABOUT UN AGENDA 21?
Considering its policies are woven into all the General Plans of the cities and counties, it’s important for people to know where these policies are coming from. While many people support the United Nations for its ‘peacemaking’ efforts, hardly anyone knows that they have very specific land use policies that they would like to see implemented in every city, county, state and nation. The specific plan is called United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development, which has its basis in Communitarianism. By now, most Americans have heard of sustainable development but are largely unaware of Agenda 21.
In a nutshell, the plan calls for governments to take control of all land use and not leave any of the decision making in the hands of private property owners. It is assumed that people are not good stewards of their land and the government will do a better job if they are in control. Individual rights in general are to give way to the needs of communities as determined by the governing body. Moreover, people should be rounded up off the land and packed into human settlements, or islands of human habitation, close to employment centers and transportation. Another program, called the Wildlands Project spells out how most of the land is to be set aside for non-humans.
U.N. Agenda 21 cites the affluence of Americans as being a major problem which needs to be corrected. It calls for lowering the standard of living for Americans so that the people in poorer countries will have more, a redistribution of wealth. Although people around the world aspire to achieve the levels of prosperity we have in our country, and will risk their lives to get here, Americans are cast in a very negative light and need to be taken down to a condition closer to average in the world. Only then, they say, will there be social justice which is a cornerstone of the U.N. Agenda 21 plan.
Agenda 21 policies date back to the 70’s but it got its real start in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro when President Bush signed onto it. Click here to see a list of the countries that signed UN Agenda 21. President Clinton took office the following year and created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development to implement it in the United States. Made up of federal agencies, corporations, and non-profit groups, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development moved quickly to ensure that all federal agencies would change their policies to comply with UN Agenda 21. A non-governmental organization called the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives, ICLEI, is tasked with carrying out the goals of Agenda 21 worldwide. Remember: UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is a global plan that is implemented locally. Over 600 cities in the U.S. are members; our town joined in 2007. The costs are paid by taxpayers.
It’s time that people educate themselves and read the document and related commentary. After that, get a copy of your city or county’s General Plan and read it. You will find all sorts of policies that are nearly identical to those in U.N. Agenda 21. Unfortunately, their policies have advanced largely unnoticed and we are now in the end game. People need to identify their elected officials who are promoting the U.N.’s policies and hold them accountable for their actions. Only when we’ve identified who the people are and what they are trying to do will we be able to evaluate whether or not we approve of the policies they are putting forward. Some people may think it’s appropriate for agencies outside the United States to set our policies and some people will not. The question is, aren’t Americans able to develop their own policies? Should we rely on an organization that consists of member nations that have different forms of governments, most of which do not value individual rights as much as we do? It’s time to bring U.N. Agenda 21 out in the open where we can have these debates and then set our own policies in accordance with our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Ok, you say, interesting, but I don’t see how that really affects me. Here are a few ways:
No matter where you live, I’ll bet that there have been hundreds of condos built in the center of your town recently. Over the last ten years there has been a ‘planning revolution’ across the US. Your commercial, industrial, and multi-residential land was rezoned to ‘mixed use.’ Nearly everything that got approvals for development was designed the same way: ground floor retail with two stories of residential above. Mixed use. Very hard to finance for construction, and very hard to manage since it has to have a high density of people in order to justify the retail. A lot of it is empty and most of the ground floor retail is empty too. High bankruptcy rate.
So what? Most of your towns provided funding and/or infrastructure development for these private projects. They used Redevelopment Agency funds. Your money. Specifically, your property taxes. Notice how there’s very little money in your General Funds now, and most of that is going to pay Police and Fire? Your street lights are off, your parks are shaggy, your roads are pot-holed, your hospitals are closing. The money that should be used for these things is diverted into the Redevelopment Agency. It’s the only agency in government that can float a bond without a vote of the people. And they did that, and now you’re paying off those bonds for the next 45 years with your property taxes. Did you know that? And by the way, even if Redevelopment is ended, as in California, they still have to pay off existing debt–for 30 to 45 years.
So, what does this have to do with Agenda 21?
Redevelopment is a tool used to further the Agenda 21 vision of remaking America’s cities. With redevelopment, cities have the right to take property by eminent domain—against the will of the property owner, and give it or sell it to a private developer. By declaring an area of town ‘blighted’ (and in some cities over 90% of the city area has been declared blighted) the property taxes in that area can be diverted away from the General Fund. This constriction of available funds is impoverishing the cities, forcing them to offer less and less services, and reducing your standard of living. They’ll be telling you that it’s better, however, since they’ve put in nice street lights and colored paving. The money gets redirected into the Redevelopment Agency and handed out to favored developers building low income housing and mixed use. Smart Growth. Cities have had thousands of condos built in the redevelopment areas and are telling you that you are terrible for wanting your own yard, for wanting privacy, for not wanting to be dictated to by a Condo Homeowner’s Association Board, for being anti-social, for not going along to get along, for not moving into a cramped apartment downtown where they can use your property taxes for paying off that huge bond debt. But it’s not working, and you don’t want to move in there. So they have to make you. Read on.
Human habitation, as it is referred to now, is restricted to lands within the Urban Growth Boundaries of the city. Only certain building designs are permitted. Rural property is more and more restricted in what uses can be on it. Although counties say that they support agricultural uses, eating locally produced food, farmer’s markets, etc, in fact there are so many regulations restricting water and land use (there are scenic corridors, inland rural corridors, baylands corridors, area plans, specific plans, redevelopment plans, huge fees, fines) that farmers are losing their lands altogether. County roads are not being paved. The push is for people to get off of the land, become more dependent, come into the cities. To get out of the suburbs and into the cities. Out of their private homes and into condos. Out of their private cars and onto their bikes.
Bikes. What does that have to do with it? I like to ride my bike and so do you. So what? Bicycle advocacy groups are very powerful now. Advocacy. A fancy word for lobbying, influencing, and maybe strong-arming the public and politicians. What’s the conection with bike groups? National groups such as Complete Streets, Thunderhead Alliance, and others, have training programs teaching their members how to pressure for redevelopment, and training candidates for office. It’s not just about bike lanes, it’s about remaking cities and rural areas to the ‘sustainable model’. High density urban development without parking for cars is the goal. This means that whole towns need to be demolished and rebuilt in the image of sustainable development. Bike groups are being used as the ‘shock troops’ for this plan.
What plan? We’re losing our homes since this recession/depression began, and many of us could never afford those homes to begin with. We got cheap money, used whatever we had to squeak into those homes, and now some of us lost them. We were lured, indebted, and sunk. Whole neighborhoods are empty in some places. Some are being bulldozed. Cities cannot afford to extend services outside of their core areas. Slowly, people will not be able to afford single family homes. Will not be able to afford private cars. Will be more dependent. More restricted. More easily watched and monitored.
This plan is a whole life plan. It involves the educational system, the energy market, the transportation system, the governmental system, the health care system, food production, and more. The plan is to restrict your choices, limit your funds, narrow your freedoms, and take away your voice. One of the ways is by using the Delphi Technique to ‘manufacture consensus.’ Another is to infiltrate community groups or actually start neighborhood associations with hand-picked ‘leaders’. Another is to groom and train future candidates for local offices. Another is to sponsor non-governmental groups that go into schools and train children. Another is to offer federal and private grants and funding for city programs that further the agenda. Another is to educate a new generation of land use planners to require New Urbanism. Another is to convert factories to other uses, introduce energy measures that penalize manufacturing, and set energy consumption goals to pre-1985 levels. Another is to allow unregulated immigration in order to lower standards of living and drain local resources.
All of this sounds unbelievable until you have had direct experience with it. You probably have, but unless you resisted it you won’t know it’s happening. That’s why we’d like you to read our blog ‘The Way We See It’ (click here). Go to the section in the blog (look on the right side under Categories) called Our Story. You’ll get a look at how two unsuspecting people fell into a snake pit and survived to tell about it.
Rosa with Elena, The View From Montana Sept 13, 2012 click here
Rosa with Rumor Mill News’ Melinda Pillsbury-Foster Feb 21, 2012 click
Rosa with KSFO’s BARBARA SIMPSON JANUARY 15, 2012 (problem with this link, we’re working on it)
Rosa with Marti Oakley on TS Radio January 11, 2012 Great show! click hereROSA KOIRE WITH MAGGIE RODDIN ON THE UNSOLICITED OPINION, SEPT 23, 2011 CLICK HERE
ROSA KOIRE DEBATES LYNN PLAMBECK ‘IS AGENDA 21 REAL?’, RADIO, SEPT 1, 2011 CLICK HERERosa Koire, Democrats Against UN Agenda 21, FreeMeNowRadio CLICK HERE
ROSA KOIRE on The Unsolicited Opinion radio show May 26, 2011 CLICK HERE
PHILADELPHIA RADIO SHOW– ROSA KOIRE December 15, 2010 CLICK HERE
COLORADO RADIO SHOW –The Unsolicited Opinion– ROSA KOIRE, APRIL 20, 2011 CLICK HERE
REDDING, CA RADIO SHOW–‘We, the People’— ROSA KOIRE, MAY 8, 2011 CLICK HERE
ROSA KOIRE WITH MARTI OAKLEY AND BARBARA PETERSON JANUARY 11, 2012 CLICK HERE
ROSA KOIRE WITH JEFF RENSE ON RENSE RADIO (CLICK ON THE ARROWS BELOW FOR SHOWS IN JULY AND DECEMBER 2011)
ASHLAND/MEDFORD OREGON RADIO
ROSA KOIRE WITH BILL MEYER ON KMED APRIL 6, 2012(CLICK ON ARROW BELOW)
ROSA KOIRE WITH JASON HARTMANN–THE HOLISTIC SURVIVAL SHOW
ROSA KOIRE WITH GEOFF BRADY, WBAI PACIFICA RADIO– JUNE 25, 2012
ASHLAND/MEDFORD OREGON RADIO
ROSA KOIRE WITH BILL MEYER ON KMED APRIL 6, 2012(CLICK ON ARROW BELOW)
ROSA KOIRE WITH JASON HARTMANN–THE HOLISTIC SURVIVAL SHOW
ROSA KOIRE WITH GEOFF BRADY, WBAI PACIFICA RADIO– JUNE 25, 2012
Geoff Brady WBAI
Take heart, you’re not alone! Make sure you read WHAT CAN I DO?
Now White House petition seeks Obama’s birth certificate
‘People’ asking for authorization for Occidental, Harvard, Hawaii to release records
Published: 2 days ago
by Bob UnruhEmail
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.More ↓
When the White House set up a system to allow American citizens to petition for grievances on the official website, officials probably didn’t expect to see citizens in all 50 states seeking secession.
Nor did they likely imagine it would be a place that would become a forum for those questioning Barack Obama’s eligibility for office and seeking his college and university records.
The title of the just-launched petition is, “Require Barack Obama To Allow The Public Examination Of His Birth Certificate Records & His College & University Records.”
Specifically, it states: “We The People request the Obama administration to require Barack H. Obama to authorize the public examination of his birth certificate records together his college and university records. We have all seen the document produced by The White House which has been declared suspect by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, but The People request that Barack Obama authorize the State of Hawaii to release all related information concerning his birth in the State. We also request that Barack Obama authorize Occidental College and Harvard University release all records they hold in connection with The President. The People will willingly pay a reasonable fee for each page or document copied and provided by either entity in accordance with their standard fee schedule.”
The issue, of course, has been in the headlines since before Obama’s first election in 2008, when it was revealed there were unanswered questions, and logical suspicions, about Obama’s eligibility even to be president under the Constitution’s requirement that the president be a “natural born citizen.”
At the time the nation was founded, that likely was understood to mean the offspring of two citizen parents and likely born in the United States. If eligibility is subject to being the offspring of two citizen parents, Obama is unqualified as his father was a visiting foreign national to attended school in the U.S.
Zullo, a seasoned sleuth who heads the team deputized by Joe Arpaio, recently re-elected sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz., fingers Hawaii’s governor, deputy attorney general and health department chiefs as obstructing justice.
Zullo’s affidavit charges these officials are “hiding” original birth records, thwarting the posse’s hunt for those who forged the document at the White House website.
The department, Zullo reported, “has engaged in what the sheriff’s investigators believe is a systematic effort to hide from law enforcement and the public whatever original 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health may have in its possession.”
And he charged that Hawaii officials “changed their policies and procedures in a manner calculated to hinder our law-enforcement investigation.”
In addition to simply refusing to discuss the issue or respond to questions, state officials also have issued contradictory statements. And state lawmakers went so far as to exempt employees from answering questions about the issue.
Zullo’s investigation documents how in 1961, state law allowed Hawaiian parents of children born anywhere in the world to register them as Hawaiian-born, a legalized backdoor to U.S. citizenship. Article II of the U.S. Constitution insists that only a “natural-born citizen” can serve as president.
Zullo’s posse already has reported to the sheriff that two crimes have been committed: first, fraudulently creating a forgery that the White House had characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and secondly, fraudulently presenting to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large a forgery that the White House had represented as “proof positive” of Obama’s authentic 1961 Hawaiian long-form birth certificate.
Zullo concludes that the whole question could be settled quickly and decisively if Hawaii would let his forensic specialists examine Obama’s original birth certificate and hospital birth record.
In Zullo’s 16-page statement, he notes that 250 residents of the state asked the sheriff to investigate possible illegalities. But he said virtually all of the pertinent records about Obama have been ordered sealed and Obama’s attorneys have refused access to documents that typically are available regarding presidents.
He notes, among many other issues, why did a biography written by Obama for 17 years boast that he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii?
Why have Hawaii officials been unable to get their story straight on the issue
Why do officials refuse to answer his questions about Obama’s records?
Why has no doctor or nurse ever come forward to talk about the birth?
Why was Obama’s first executive order as president instructions to seal his own records from the public?
Why are his birth records, baptismal records, adoption records, kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia University thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passports, medical records, files as an Illinois state senator and his Illinois state bar association records all concealed?
Why was Hawaii’s governor unable to keep his word when he said he would find Obama’s records and confirm his status?
Why are the National Archives records for immigration from 1961 – during the three days around Obama’s birth – missing?
Why has nothing been done regarding the law enforcement conclusions that “President Obama’s long-form birth certificate is a computer-generated document; that it was manufactured piecemeal and electronically; and that it did not originate as a copy of a true paper record from a bound volume…”
What is the significance of the fact that Obama’s birth record number is out of sequence?
The government petition website suddenly became a news item because residents in all 50 states are petitioning there for permission for their states to leave the union.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has said there is no such right. But historians would note that Thomas Jefferson said states “should separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers.”
His letter, posted online at Constitution.org, sheds light on the arguments raised on the Obama administration’s online petition site, where dozens of petitions are seeking permission for virtually all of the states to leave the union.
Jefferson wrote about the expansion of power then by the federal government “towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power.”
He continued: “Take together the decisions of the federal court, the doctrines of the president, and the misconstructions of the constitutional Compact acted on by the legislature of the federal branch, and it is but too evident, that the three ruling branches of that department are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities; of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic.”
He targeted the same authority that Obama has cited in his promotion of Obamacare: “Under the power to regulate commerce, they assume indefinitely that also over agriculture and manufactures, and call it regulation to take the earnings of one of these branches of industry, and that, too, the most depressed, and put them into the pockets of the other, the most flourishing of all.
“Under the authority to establish post roads, they claim that of cutting down mountains for the construction of roads, of digging canals, and aided by a little sophistry on the words ‘general welfare,’ a right to do, not only the acts to effect that, which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think, or pretend will be for the general welfare. And what is our resource for the preservation of the Constitution?”
Political debate at that point, reasoned Jefferson, was futile.
“Reason and argument? You might as well reason and argue with the marble columns encircling them. The representatives chosen by ourselves? They are joined in the combination, some from incorrect views of government, some from corrupt ones, sufficient voting together to outnumber the sound parts; and with majorities only of one, two, or three, bold enough to go forward in defiance. ”
And he continued: “[We must] keep ourselves in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation.”
Hawaii officials fingered for ‘hiding’ Obama’s birth records
Cold Case Posse boss fingers Hawaii officials
Sworn statement details ‘elaborate non-cooperation’ on Obama probe
WND (by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley):
An angry statement just sworn by the lead investigator of a team assigned to review Barack Obama’s birth certificate says Hawaii officials – who are Democrats like Obama – are using “elaborate non-cooperation” to conceal birth records from law enforcement and the public.
Zullo, a seasoned sleuth who heads the team deputized by Joe Arpaio, recently re-elected sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz., fingers Hawaii’s governor, deputy attorney general and health department chiefs as obstructing justice.
Zullo’s affidavit charges these officials are “hiding” original birth records, thwarting the posse’s hunt for those who forged the document at the White House website.
His detailed catalog of Hawaii’s misfeasance is shocking.
After two visits to the islands in the past six months, he has “chronicled a series of inconsistent and misleading representations” that various officials of the government of Hawaii have made since he was assigned to the case when 250 voters petitioned their sheriff to investigate the dodgy document more than a year ago.
Those statements have come since 2007 and are on the question of what original birth records, if any, are held by the Hawaii Department of Health.
The department, Zullo said, “has engaged in what the sheriff’s investigators believe is a systematic effort to hide from law enforcement and the public whatever original 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health may have in its possession.”
Officials “changed their policies and procedures in a manner calculated to hinder our law-enforcement investigation,” he continued.
Alvin Onaka, Hawaii’s chief birth registrar, refused to talk to Zullo.
“Much to our amazement we were informed that Mr. Onaka does not speak to the public.”
Jill Nagamine, Hawaii’s deputy attorney general, spoke to Zullo at his insistence but “refused to verify the authenticity” of the birth certificate released to the American public on the government’s whitehouse.gov site.
Nagamine “would not provide us with any confirmation that the document was created by the Hawaii Department of Health.”
She accused Zullo of “trying to get a verification of a birth record without legal authority.”
Yet the duly deputized investigators had presented their credentials to police in Honolulu before interviewing her.
She “constantly evaded answering every question about the legitimacy of the document.”
Zullo went to the Kapiolani Hospital, where the forgery says Obama was born. He asked to see the publicly available birth records for 1961, the alleged year of his birth. The hospital “less than politely refused.”
Management failed even to confirm Obama had been born there, “nor did they confirm that they were in possession of his birth records.”
In 2008, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the Health Department’s director, said she had “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record.”
Eight months later she changed her statement. She dropped all mention of seeing the “original birth certificate.”
Instead, she said she had seen “the original vital records verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American.”
In 1961, state law permitted Hawaiian parents of children born anywhere in the world to register them as Hawaiian-born, a legalized backdoor to U.S. citizenship. Article II of the U.S. Constitution insists that only a “natural-born citizen” can serve as president.
At that time, Hawaii’s local newspapers filled space by printing birth announcements from the archive, including Hawaiian birth certificates of foreign-born children.
So the announcement of Obama’s birth in two newspapers is not evidence he was born in Hawaii.
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii’s governor, said he was present at Obama’s birth. Then he changed his story. He “acknowledged that he did not see Obama’s parents with their newborn son at any hospital.”
Abercrombie then said he remembered seeing Obama as a child with his parents at social events.
Zullo writes: “There is no evidence to support that claim. No doctor or nurse who attended his birth has come forward to say so.”
Abercrombie told a Honolulu newspaper he would search for definitive records to prove Obama was born in Hawaii.
He said: “The continuing eligibility controversy could hurt the president’s chances of re-election in 2012.” The issue would raise “political implications … that we simply cannot have.”
Yet Abercrombie never subsequently said he had seen Obama’s original long-form birth certificate. He said no more than that he had identified “an unspecified listing or notation of Obama’s birth that someone had made in the state archives.”
Zullo adds: “If such a document had existed, Abercrombie would have had it within minutes of his request.”
He continues: “To date the purported undisclosed birth record in the state archives that Abercrombie has claimed to have discovered and has described as being ‘actually written’ has never been made public.
“Being located in the state archives, this document should be available for inspection by the general public without restraint.”
Fukino told CNN in 2011 that she had gone into the Health Department’s vault, where she had inspected Obama’s original birth certificate.
Zullo comments: “Inferentially, it should have been that easy for Gov. Abercrombie to locate it as well.”
Nagamine said: “Accessing the original birth records was difficult and expensive.”
Yet Fukino had told CNN “she simply went to the vault and inspected Obama’s original birth certificate.”
Zullo’s affidavit shows a picture of Onaka lifting out a volume of 1973 birth certificates from the archive shelves, showing that consulting the records is no harder than looking up a book in a library.
On Zullo’s second visit to Hawaii, he met Duncan Sunahara, who had been refused a certified copy of a long-form birth certificate for his sister, Virginia.
Shortly after her birth, she had died of breathing complications the day of Obama’s birth.
Zullo comments: “The Cold Case Posse is compelled to consider the question why this little girl’s 1961 long-form birth certificate was so disconcerting to the Hawaii Department of Health that it did not wish to issue a copy to Mr. Sunahara upon request.”
Hawaii took great care to number certificates sequentially. Officials stacked them in monthly batches by date and time of birth before numbering each in turn with an automatically incremented stamp.
Obama, born at 7:24 p.m. Aug. 4, 1961, now has No. 10641 on his birth certificate.
Virginia Sunahara, born almost two hours later, now has No. 11080. Yet on average only two babies an hour were born in Hawaii that year. Her number should have been no more than 10650. It is too big by well over 400.
Also, twins born the following day were given numbers earlier than Obama’s current number: No. 10637 and No. 10638.
Investigators suspect Obama’s number was not assigned in 1961 but may have been taken from Sunahara’s birth certificate.
When Sunahara first asked for a certified copy of his sister’s birth certificate last year, he did not get it, though Hawaiian law says he should get a full certificate if he asks for it.
He was given a short-form computer abstract. The posse suspects that was when officials altered Virginia Sunahara’s computerized record to give it an impossibly high number.
Zullo also mentions evidence that the computerized index of birth records did not contain Obama’s name when a Hawaiian citizen first consulted it, but the name had been added when he looked again two weeks later.
The short-form abstract of Obama’s birth record had been published in 2008. At first, the number had been blacked out, though there was no legitimate reason why. Shortly afterward an image was published with the number 10641 visible.
So, if the posse is right to suspect the Health Department had used Virginia Sunahara’s number when it issued Obama’s short-form abstract in 2008, it had to alter her record to give her a different number altogether – “a possibility,” says Zullo, “that the investigators are constrained to bear in mind.”
The posse has reported to the sheriff that two crimes have been committed: first, fraudulently creating a forgery that the White House had characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and secondly, fraudulently presenting to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large a forgery that the White House had represented as “proof positive” of Obama’s authentic 1961 Hawaiian long-form birth certificate.
Zullo concludes that the whole question could be settled quickly and decisively if Hawaii would let his forensic specialists examine Obama’s original birth certificate and hospital birth record.
Petraeus testifies CIA’s Libya talking points were changed, lawmaker says
Published November 16, 2012
Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified in a closed-door hearing Friday morning that his agency determined immediately after the Sept. 11 Libya attack that “Al Qaeda involvement” was suspected — but the line was taken out in the final version circulated to administration officials, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., who spoke to reporters after Petraeus testified before the House Intelligence Committee, indicated he and other lawmakers still have plenty of questions about the aftermath of the attack.
“No one knows yet exactly who came up with the final version of the talking points,” he said.
Petraeus was heading next to the Senate Intelligence Committee to testify. At the same time, lawmakers unexpectedly convened a briefing with top members of various committees to examine a Sept. 25 letter to President Obama that asked a series of classified questions on Benghazi.
Petraeus’ testimony both challenges the Obama administration’s repeated claims that the attack was a “spontaneous” protest over an anti-Islam video, and according to King conflicts with his own briefing to lawmakers on Sept. 14. Sources have said Petraeus, in that briefing, also described the attack as a protest that spun out of control.
“His testimony today was that from the start, he had told us that this was a terrorist attack,” King said, adding that he told Petraeus he had a “different recollection.”
Still, the claim that the CIA’s original talking points were changed is sure to stoke controversy on the Hill.
“The original talking points were much more specific about Al Qaeda involvement. And yet the final ones just said indications of extremists,” King said, adding that the final version was the product of a vague “inter-agency process.”
Further, King said a CIA analyst specifically told lawmakers that the Al Qaeda affiliates line “was taken out.”
Lawmakers are focusing on the talking points issue because of concern over the account U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice gave on five Sunday shows on Sept. 16, when she repeatedly claimed the attack was spontaneous — Rice’s defenders have since insisted she was merely basing her statements on the intelligence at the time.
The suggestion that the intelligence was altered raised questions about who altered it, with King asking if “the White House changed the talking points.”
One source told Fox News that Petraeus “has no idea what was provided” to Rice or who was the author of the talking points she used.
“He had no idea she was going on talk shows” until the White House announced it one or two days before, the source said.
While Petraeus resigned last Friday over an extra-marital affair, his testimony Friday was expected to focus on Libya as opposed to personal matters. King said it barely came up, and only when Petraeus was asked if the affair and investigation had any impact on his testimony on Libya. “He said no,” King said.
The pressure was on Petraeus to set the record straight, after other top intelligence officials struggled a day earlier to explain why their initial talking points after the Libya attack minimized the role of militant groups.
Lawmakers on the House and Senate intelligence committees heard testimony Thursday in private meetings with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Acting CIA Director Mike Morell. But Fox News was told there were heated exchanges on the House side, particularly over the talking points that administration officials relied on in the days after the Sept. 11 strike.
Fox News was told that neither Clapper nor Morell knew for sure who finalized that information. And they could not explain why they minimized the role of a regional Al Qaeda branch as well as the militant Ansar al-Sharia despite evidence of their involvement.
Further, Fox News was told Morell was pushed to explain why, during a Sept. 14 briefing, Petraeus seemed wedded to the explanation that the attack was in response to an anti-Islam video. Morell apparently said he wasn’t at that briefing and had nothing further to add.
Lawmakers continue to express concerns on several fronts — on whether warnings in the months preceding Sept. 11 were ignored, and on why the administration first insisted the attack was a “spontaneous” act.
Rice has been the focal point of that criticism. Obama, though, in his first post-election press conference Wednesday, called the criticism “outrageous” and told those lawmakers to “go after me” instead.
California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff also came to Rice’s defense Thursday, saying after the House intelligence committee hearing that Rice was given the intelligence community’s “best assessment” at the time.
“Those who have suggested that Ambassador Rice was politicizing the intelligence or misrepresenting what the intelligence community was putting forward as its best assessment are either unfamiliar with the facts, or willfully disregarding them,” he said.
Fox News’ Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/16/petraeus-to-testify-knew-libya-was-terrorism-from-start-source-says/#ixzz2CPKHYhHT
Cause for Hope
First, a quote from Charles W. Cooke at National Review Online, who is fast becoming one of my most preferred political commentators:
“Conservative Americans are not systematically being denied their liberties. They are not facing the might of a British empire determined to crush them. There is no Declaratory Act. There are no unwanted foreign troops stationed in our cities. Instead, we are failing to win the argument. This is a considerable problem, but we have [an] advantage. And it is that our ideas are timeless and they are right. They will win again, whether it is by argument or economic gravity.”
Barack Obama and Democrats delivered to Romney and his supporters last week the stomach punch of a lifetime; a resounding victory for the left, and a demoralizing defeat for the right. Conservative author Ann Coulter wallowed Wednesday on Laura Ingraham’s radio show that “If Mitt Romney can’t win in this economy, we’ve reached the tipping point. There are more takers than makers, there is no hope. It’s over.” Indeed, given our dire straits and the implications, there’s not much to be said in the way of silver linings or post-storm rainbows.
Obama won every swing state save North Carolina, and this after the GOP and its surrogate organizations made hundreds of thousands more voter contacts than they managed for John McCain’s campaign. The president won 55% of women, 93% of blacks, 71% of Hispanics, and 50% of the religiously affiliated (including 75% of Hispanic Catholics). He won 60% of the youth vote, which grew a percentage point in 2012 to 19% of the total electorate compared to 18% in 2008. About the only major demographics Obama didn’t win are the two shrinking more with each cycle: white adult males and married women.
Obama won about nine million fewer votes in 2012 than he did just four years ago. While he bested Romney, it’s not unreasonable nor irrelevant to note that this was not some grand endorsement by the public at large of his results or, more importantly, his policies. Rather, this loss revealed great Republican organizational weakness and a thus far ignored necessity to bend its marketing toward a broader base, namely Hispanics and youth.
Romney closed the popular vote gap by 5% (losing 48% to 51%), a full 4.5% better than McCain managed.
To look at it another way, and while perhaps evermore frustrating, Mitt Romney and Republicans lost this election, more than Obama and Democrats won it. The GOP failed, and that is a good thing.
Good, in the face of the alternative (getting our tails kicked on ideological grounds, which isn’t what happened), for it presents opportunity to reach potential voters that are not necessarily taken in by the twirls and swirls of liberalism’s diatribe. If Obama had increased his turnout by nine million, conservatives would be better served to buy an island and start anew. But he didn’t. Republicans failed to convincingly market their candidate and positions in a trustworthy way, and in a manner that would persuade enough people that conservatism is best for all, not just the affluent. More than Obama’s likeability advantage, that is what impairedthem on election day. Improved messaging, especially in minority communities, and avoiding get-out-the-vote catastrophes like Project Orca (Ben Domenech quipped: “You’d at least think a Mormon would get door-to-door right”), and Mitt Romney is packing his bags for the White House.
In David Limbaugh’s recent column, he slashes into the naysayers and white flaggers:
“Never mind, you say. The electorate has irreversibly become a taker class, and conservative ideas of self-reliance, personal responsibility and individual liberties will never appeal to a majority again, especially with demographics working against the GOP. We must reject that, or we are as good as surrendering. To accept it, we are confessing our skepticism of the power of ideas, which itself is contrary to the conservative spirit.”
As Jim Geraghty notes, but for 407,000 votes in four swing states – less than 0.5% of all voters – Mitt would have won. We were really close. This is an opportunity.
Contrary to liberals’ cries of a principles and values-driven shellacking, America didn’t beat a resounding liberal drum last Tuesday (nine million fewer votes!). Instead, she bore a whole lot of frustrated and apathetic evangelicals, libertarians, and conservatives who didn’t like Romney.
The cause for optimism here is that Republican failings this cycle are not solution-less. It’s easier to make a case to those who simply didn’t like your candidate enough to vote against the other side, than it is convincing voters away from the other contender. Branding, messaging, organizing, and minority outreach (not pandering, there’s a difference; we have to better articulate why the conservative tide will raise all boats). Broaden the base. Very doable.
Yes, it’s thoroughly disgusting what the American people chose by electing Barack Obama again. Yes, it’s thoroughly disheartening that millions accepted him by default by staying home. Yes, there is work to be done – mountains and mole hills alike – for Republicans to take the Senate in 2014 and the Presidency in 2016. But this wasn’t a wave of liberalism flowing over the country brandishing a bullhorn to pronounce conservatism’s permanent death. 2012 was a staggering blow, but not necessarily a lethal one if we play our cards right. Down, but not out.
Ingraham concluded her segment by disagreeing with Coulter, saying that the country hasn’t had a national leader make an elegant and articulate case for conservatism in two decades. She’s right. If we’re able to revamp our messaging to the masses and convince them that it is conservatism, not liberalism, which most improves the maximum number of lives, then all is not yet lost.
Iron sharpens iron, and conservatives must work to ensure that their mill is bigger and more efficient in the very near future. We carry on the fight. No other option exists.
American Tipping Point, Part 1: Reflection
Since the day after the debacle of November 6th, 2012, I have been on the road to Memphis, Nashville and points in between. The remnants of the devastation to our founding principles are scattered along mile after mile of highway and in lawn after patriotic lawn in every town along the way.
What had been intended as a Romney victory celebration trip had suddenly become a mile after mile after mile moment of soul-searching I had never in my life dreamed I would ever be experiencing. After coming to adulthood during the catastrophe that was the Carter administration, I just did not have it in me to think the America would ever, (and I do men ever, as in never, is in no way in friggin hell could we EVER be that stupid again) repeat that mistake again.
But repeat it we did, and in such a large and ominous way.
While Obama’s incompetence on the economy (unemployment, energy and food prices, almost stagnant GDP growth) is only matched by his incompetence on foreign policy (Iran, Libya, Egypt, China, Russia and on and on and on) the most visible example of incompetence on display November 6th was not Barack Obama’s, it was the American voter’s.
One by ignorant one, millions upon millions of those voters lined up to enter the polling booths and cast their lot against the America that had gotten them to that booth. Turning their back on founding principles, they gave the most divisive, left-wing ideologue to ever occupy the Oval Office four more years to continue the destruction he started in 2009.
And that has been the question haunting me for these past five days:
Just HOW IN THE HELL could so many, be absolutely SO STUPID?
The question may be short, it may be simple, but the answer is neither and tis far more complex than to be given justice in but one column. We didn’t get to this point in just one election cycle and it certainly can’t be explained in the context of any one thing or one event.
With that in mind, I am embarking upon a new series: American Tipping Point
Broken into four segments, it’s my response to the Alice in Wonderland result of Tuesday last and puts forth four basic questions:
What just happened?
Where are we now?
How did we get here?
Where do we go from here?
I’m no sage, I’m no keeper of all things political, and I’ve no more wisdom than that found in my little finger, but I have been living, eating and breathing American politics and her societal changes for over 35 years.
My “cred” comes not from any formal training as a “journalist” or “political scientist”, but only from being more politically engaged than most over those years and being given what some poor misguided souls feel is a “gift” to put on paper (or pixels now) the feelings that so many feel but just can’t or don’t have the time to express.
I’m nothing special, but I AM an American and as an American I do feel a duty to protect her as I can. As an idealistic teenager, I may have had to endure the let down of a certain military recruiter telling me “son, your academics are stellar, but between your arm and your eyes, there isn’t a chance in hell you’re entering the cockpit of a Navy jet” (paraphrased but you get the point).
But as a realistic adult now 33 years post that dream crushing moment, I do not have to endure the let down handed this nation by a certain group of its citizenry more concerned to continue the free flow of their “stuff” than to ensure the existence of it for future generations.
I do not have to stand idly by and just watch as what so many paid the ultimate price for, disintegrates into the lowest common denominator of “I’ve got mine so screw you”. And neither do you.
There is no question we crossed de Tocqueville’s “tipping point” last Tuesday. We’ve all known it was coming and we all knew it was possible going into Tuesday.
What we don’t know is whether we can “tip back” (fight for the return of America as founded) or whether a mass surrender just occurred (no return) and America is now but a failed experiment on the road to decline.
The series begins Tuesday and will be interspersed among other columns as the news of the day dictates.
I do not now nor ever will claim to have all the answers, but I do ask you to take my four basic questions and answer them in your own mind, within your own world view, from your own political perspectives and then in the privacy of your own soul, decide for yourself what America you’re willing to fight for.
But we cannot delude ourselves. November 6th 2012 was a Dunkirk.
It was without a doubt, a massive defeat.
Whether that defeat marks the beginning of America’s end or a rallying cry for the new revolution remains to be seen.
Myself personally, I promise to stand tall upon the rock of freedom and do whatever I can to reverse that defeat and return America to her rightful place in history as that “shining city on a hill”.
And I do so knowing full well what lies ahead:
The fight will not be easy, it will be long, it will be hard,
You will not be popular, you will be ridiculed and reviled,
It will not be cheap as the war chest before us overflows with ill-gotten gains,
But it is necessary and vital and it shall not be in vain.
There are but two choices: victory or defeat,
So let it be written by future generations that when the country needed them most,
The strong, the sure, the pure of heart, stood tall upon the rock of freedom,
And in unified spirit and singular voice shouted to the tyranny: NO MORE
God Save the United States of America.
Where Do We Go From Here? (GOD HELP US! JM)
Filed Under 2012
Before the elections, an echo rang throughout the land. Well at least through the MSM. We kept hearing Obama and the left proclaim that the rich need to pay their fair share of the nation’s taxes(failing to mention that the rich already pay over 70% of the nation’s taxes). They also claimed that the rich won’t care if they pay more in taxes. That’s a load of crap, I said to myself over and over again. Surely the rich won’t vote for individuals that want to steal their income and redistribute it to a group of bottom-feeders. Boy was I wrong. Obama actually picked up eight of the ten wealthiest counties in the U.S.
This is absolutely mind-boggling, to say the least. I can’t wrap my mind around the thought process of these people. I don’t know if they are just stupid or ignorant. Maybe the rich had some elaborate plan to get Obama re-elected and then start a mass exodus in the near future, taking their money and jobs with them to another country–which, by the way, would leave the rest of us screwed. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the unemployment rate doubled, $6.00 gas, and a restricted second amendment.
A fortune-teller I am not, but I do know that we are heading for rough waters in the near future. Luckily you don’t have to be a fortune-teller to be able to know where we are heading. All you have to do is look back through world history and find out what happened to civilizations in the days of yore.
Looking back to the Roman Empire, you will find a lot of similarities between the former and current powerful nations. The Romans, before their fall, became a very perverse society. Sexual immorality was rampant. It decayed the foundation of the society like a plague. Sound familiar? As we all know, our society is following in the path of the Romans. Sex is almost used like currency in our society. People meet a stranger in some bar and have a one night stand, or they want that promotion so they use sex to get it. There are also a lot of people who participate in acts like sodomy, bestiality, and many other perverse sex acts. Sounds like a sexually immoral society to me.
Another reason for the fall of the Roman civilization was that they had the majority of their population on a type of welfare system, the government would give citizens a monthly ration of grain, at a highly discounted price. Since the government controlled the price of the grain, they could raise or lower the price to affect the favorability of the ruler. Again, sounds the same. Looking at today’s society it is very clear that we are heavily vested in our welfare system. It is an ever-expanding behemoth. Not only are we giving people free money for nothing, but in the not so distant past FDR gave his “hold-the-line” order where the government froze most prices. They even jailed people who tried charging any more than these set limits. Again, sounds like the Roman empire to me.
Let’s not fail to mention that the Romans had a blood lust, where the Christians bore the brunt of their lust for violence. Now Americans currently don’t have gladiators who fight to the death. However we do enjoy watching two men beat the crap out of each other for hours at a time. What America does have, in comparison, is a society the is increasingly anti-Christian, anti-Jew, and/or just plain anti-God. Atheists say that the nation was not founded on biblical principles and the founding fathers were ‘areligious.’ However, all you have to do is look at what the founders said in their own words (not a text-book written two years ago by a bunch of commie educators) and you see that they were, in fact, devout Christians. Even Thomas Jefferson was, comparatively, more Christian than most Christians today.
More than fifty percent of American voters made a statement that was loud and clear on November 6, 2012. ”We would rather have free crap than Freedom.” This is disheartening. I no longer recognize the country that I have loved my entire life. We let politicians that have lied to us–right to our faces–sweet talks us into voting for them again. We voted in favor of letting our taxes be raised to new historic levels.
Barack Obama will go down in history as the president who single-handedly destroyed the America that we know and love today. We have seen his failed and destructive policies being inflicted upon the American people for just about four years now with dire consequences. We have seen his ineptitude when it comes to handling issues of foreign policy. It seems the president, in the last few months, started showing his true colors. He has revealed that he is a socialist, and America still voted to keep him as the leader of our country.
In the coming months, conservatives need to regroup and figure out a strategy to start taking back our society. We need to either change the Republican party, or send it the way of the Whig party. We bloggers are the new media and we need to connect, we need to come together. So get on Twitter, get a blog, connect with other like-minded people, and don’t worry, real change will come to the country and we will bring it to fruition.
You can follow TheRevolutionary on twitter @RevOnlineDotCom or you can follow me @OlyPatriot. Like Facebook? Like TheRevolutionary here.
DAVOS/SWITZERLAND, 27JAN10 – George Soros, IF ONE HAS ENOUGH MONEY, ONE IS GOD! at the Congress Centre. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Is the Soros-Sponsored ‘Agenda 21′ a Hidden Plan for World Government? (Yes, Only it Is Not Hidden)
What is Agenda 21? If you do not know about it, you should.
Agenda 21 is a two-decade old, grand plan for global ’Sustainable Development,’ brought to you from the United Nations. George H.W. Bush (and 177 other world leaders) agreed to it back in 1992, and in 1995, Bill Clinton signed Executive Order #12858, creating a Presidential Council on ‘Sustainable Development.’ This effectively pushed the UN plan into America’s large, churning government machine without the need for any review or discussion by Congress or the American people.
‘Sustainable Development’ sounds like a nice idea, right? It sounds nice, until you scratch the surface and find that Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development are really cloaked plans to impose the tenets of Social Justice/Socialism on the world.
At risk from Agenda 21;
Private Property ownership
Private car ownership and individual travel choices
Privately owned farms
The Agenda 21 plan openly targets private property. For over thirty-five years the UN has made their stance very clear on the issue of individuals owning land;
Land… cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole.
There are two more, very good reasons to be wary of Agenda 21 and the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) that supports it: George Soros and the United Nations. Soros money has been tracked to funding parts of ICLEI ;
In 1997, George Soros’s Open Society gave ICLEI a $2,147,415 grant to support its Local Agenda 21 Project
As regards the UN, that organization’s problems with America’s appreciation of freedom and self-determination is one that needs no explanation.
Currently in California, Agenda 21 is working to implement plans to create plans for sustainable management of ‘open spaces.’ The definition of what is to be considered an ‘open space’ has sparked some heated exchanges between those directing the planning meetings and citizens who want private property rights to be respected and protected. (The East Bay Tea Party video featuring a Liberal Democrat arguing against ICLEI can be seen at the end of this article.)
This type of global plan could not be implemented without a large and well-funded group pushing through its priorities. For that, Agenda 21 has the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). And ICLEI is deeply entrenched in America;
ICLEI USA was launched in 1995 and has grown from a handful of local governments participating in a pilot project to a solid network of more than 600 cities, towns and counties actively striving to achieve tangible reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and create more sustainable communities. ICLEI USA is the domestic leader on climate protection and adaptation, and sustainable development at the local government level.
Over six hundred cities,towns and counties in America are members of ICLEI? Do you support your local government agreeing to rules and regulations set up by a UN-based organization that wants private property transferred to government control? If you would like to see if your community is a member of ICLEI, you can visit their website.
Austin, Texas is one city that seems to have fallen for the ICLEI/Agenda 21 and was heavily consuming the ‘Communitariasm’ Kool-aid. A local group called Texans For Accountable Government saw what was happening and attempted to stop the Austin City Council from adopting some Agenda 21-friendly initiatives. One of TAG’s members, John Bush, delivered a succinct presentation on ICLEI and Agenda 21 that was virtually ignored. Watch his short argument against the proposed local law immediately followed by the lopsided vote adopting the plan.
In the world of business Agenda 21 is not a free market friend, preferring PPPs or Private Public Partnerships where the government decides which companies will receive tax breaks and are allowed to stay in business. In light of this realization, the cozy relationship between the current administration and GE (a company that paid no tax in 2010) should raise eyebrows. And the WH efforts to tell Boeing in which state they can operate seems to further bolster the belief that Agenda 21 ideals are already making headway in America.
The seeds for Agenda 21 were planted back in 1987 when the writings of Gro Harlem Brundtland (a woman who was first Vice-President of the Socialist International) caught the eye of the UN. Dr. Brundtland wrote a report for the UN called, ‘Our Common Future’ eventually got into the business of environmentalism as a tool to control all the people of the world and establish a global government. The growth of ICLEI and the framework being put in place by supporters of Agenda 21 appear to be bringing Dr. Brundtland’s ideas closer to reality
In recent months, citizen groups across the country have organized and become involved in the removal of towns and cities from membership in ICLEI. The Roanoke, VA Tea Party is holding a rally this week in an effort to have ICLEI removed from their local government.
From the Bay Area Tea Party we offer a long-form video covering Agenda 21;
The featured speaker at the Tea Party meeting, Rosa Koire, is a liberal Democrat who understands that Agenda 21 will destroy America as we know it. Rosa’s website, DemocratsAgainstAgenda21.com is also worth a visit.
H/T to the tireless members of the SFBAY 9-12 organization for all of their information sharing on the topics of ICLEI and Agenda 21.
, member of the United States House of Representatives. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. Likely Heading to Jail Instead of Returning to Congress
Last year Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) proposed that Pres. Obama declares a state of emergency and use his executive powers to completely bypass Congress and enact the jobs plan. He claimed his stimulus plan would only cost $804 billion. But when you do the math: providing $40,000 per year to 15 million people for five years adds up to $3 trillion.
Perhaps the reason for Jackson’s insane plan was due to the early stages of his reported health and mental issues that manifested themself earlier this year. On June 10th his staff released a statement saying that Congressman Jesse L Jackson Jr. was on a medical leave of absence and being treated for exhaustion. According to official records Jackson suffers from Bipolar II disorder and was treated at the Mayo Clinic for months.
However, this leave just happened to coincide with the arrest of his former friend and fundraiser Raghuveer Nayak for fraud and tax offenses. Now we learn that Jackson Jr. has been under investigation for the misuse of campaign funds for his own personal gain. It seems that his 17 years in Congress representing Obama’s home turf in Chicago is about to come to an end.
It was discovered by federal investigators that he had used campaign contributions for his own personal travel, home furnishings and to pay for travel of a nightclub hostess with whom he was having an extramarital affair. Evidently the evidence was overwhelming and Jackson was unable to deny the charges.
A plea deal has been reported to be in the works with former federal prosecutor Dan Webb acting on Jackson’s behalf. Early reports from the local news source says the plea deal will involve Jackson pleading guilty of the charges of misuse of campaign funds for his own personal gain. It will require him to resign his congressional seat, payback political contributions, and may result in some jail time.
Why does it not surprise me that another Chicago politician is found to be as corrupt as so many other Chicago politicians have been including the one occupying the White House. It also doesn’t surprise me since he is the son of the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who in my opinion is nothing more than a racial troublemaker who has made a career of inciting racial hatred and division.
Even though Jackson did no campaigning this year he easily won re-election for his congressional seat. Upon his resignation a special election will be held to replace him in Congress. I’ve heard nothing on who would run for that seat but be assured that it will be another liberal Democrat raised in Chicago style politics and will likely be no better than Jackson Jr.