Jean Claude Van Damme Calls Out Rothschild & Rockefeller On Live TV


Appearing on the French television show, Le Grand Journal, Jean-Claude Van Damme (JCVD) just showed the world that even he is aware of the control and power of the Rothschild and Rockefeller families.  Continue reading

Computer Programmer Testifies Under Oath He Coded Computers To Rig Elections


It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. -Joseph Stalin

One thing in US history is consistent throughout every single election cycle — allegations of voter fraud. These allegations, however, are not the ramblings of a kook with tinfoil wrapped around his head, they are substantiated and reach as high as the Supreme Court. Don’t believe it? Ask Al Gore and George W. Bush. If you think that the ruling class would leave it up to the voters to decide who gets elected, you should think again. Every single candidate who actually challenges the status-quo becomes a target.  Continue reading

Will Jesse Ventura Mount His Own Presidential Run? Here’s The Details..


Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura (I) said he would run for president, if the current race comes down to Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton, the Daily Beastreported.

“Jesse Ventura is a bright, shining new face who comes riding in on a white stallion to save the country,” he said.  Continue reading

10 Things The US Government Doesn’t Want You To Know


When it comes to governance, especially in the case of a democratic government, the voters get to choose trusted leaders to deal with all the affairs involved in running the country. This means that the population entrusts the country to a few people, who are supposed to be accountable to them, responsible in all their actions, innovative in problem solving and selfless when it comes to executing their duties in office. During the campaign period, the leaders in question always promise the voters heaven on earth, only for them to get to office and fall short on all their promises. This is the situation in all parts of the world, and it begs the question “what changes in an individual when he or she ascends to power?”
Continue reading

Bernie Out of the Closet: Sanders’ Longstanding Deal with the Democrats

Senator Bernard "Bernie" Sanders, an independent from Vermont and chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, makes an opening statement during a hearing in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Thursday, May 15, 2014. Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki said he is "mad as hell" over allegations of treatment delays and cover-ups at VA health clinics in Phoenix and Fort Collins, Colorado. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images

I am glad that the left intellectual and activist Chris Hedges does not support the Bernie Sanders campaign for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. As Hedges explained in a recent interview on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour, Sanders’ candidacy lends undeserved credibility to the thoroughly corporatized Democratic Party. Sanders has pledged that he will support the corporatist military hawk Hillary Clinton in the 2016 general presidential election. Sanders stirs up legitimate progressive energy and popular anger and then “funnels it back into a dead political system,” Hedges observes. Sanders fails to confront the American Empire and military state, and, Hedges adds, has unforgivably “abandoned the Palestinians and given carte blanche to Israel.”

Continue reading

Ventura Says He’s Rooting For Trump, Open To Being His Vice President

Trump Ventura

Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura said Wednesday that he’s rooting for Donald Trump to win the Republican nomination for president.

The former professional wrestler also said he would be open to serving as Trump’s vice- presidential candidate.

Continue reading

Hillary Clinton Adviser Reportedly Went Berserk At Anthony Weiner, And Told Him He Was Going To ‘Pull Out’ His Throat

Anthony Weiner 

(Business Insider) - Philippe Reines, the personal spokesman and longtime adviser to Hillary Clinton, blew up at New York City mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner after the latest revelations surrounding his online sexual relationships.The New York Times’ Amy Chozick and Michael Grynbaum report that Reines went off on Weiner during a campaign conference call after learning of the new revelations. Reines is a close personal friend of Huma Abedin, a “surrogate daughter” beloved by the Clintons, and has an informal, unpaid role with the campaign. Continue reading

Rand Paul Says He is Considering a Presidential Run in 2016


Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said this morning that he is considering a run for president in 2016, but will not make a decision before 2014. Paul’s filibuster on the American drone program, his speeches at theHeritage Foundation and Howard University have propelled Paul into the American political mainstream and allowed him to try to establish himself as a mainstream conservative and as a Republican interested in reaching out to African-Americans.

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky says he is considering a presidential campaign in 2016 but will not make a decision before next year.

Paul says at a breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor that he wants to be part of the national debate and being considered a potential candidate gives him a “larger microphone” on issues.

Malcolm Smith And Dan Halloran Arrested For Trying To Rig NYC Mayoral Election, According To Report


Malcolm Smith Dan Halloran


QUEENS — Prominent Queens politicians Malcolm Smith and Dan Halloran were arrested early Tuesday for attempting to manipulate this year’s mayoral election, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

At the conclusion of an extensive undercover corruption investigation, four others were arrested along with the Queens pair, including two Republican party officials and the mayor of Spring Valley, N.Y., the Department of Justice said.

“Public service is not supposed to be a shortcut to self-enrichment,” FBI Assistant Director George Venizelos said in a statement.  “At the very least, public officials should obey the law. As alleged, these defendants did not obey the law; they broke the law and the public trust. There is a price to pay for that kind of betrayal.”

Agents of the FBI took Smith, a state senator, and Halloran, a City Council member, into custody at their homes about 6 a.m., the New York Post reported.

Halloran told a reporter outside his home that he “had no idea” why he was being arrested, the Post reported.

“I’m sure the truth will come out once I have an opportunity to find out what’s going on,” Halloran added.

The pair allegedly formed an alliance to place Smith, a Democrat who represents Queens Village, St. Albans and Jamaica, onto the Republican mayoral ballot by enlisting the support of major GOP leaders through bribes, according to the Post and officials.

Smith needed the support of three boroughs to get the Republican nod without having to change party affiliation, the newspaper reported.

Halloran, a Republican representing northeastern Queens, was tasked with setting up those meetings and handling bribes totaling thousands of dollars, the Post reported.

The bribes were masked as legal and accounting services, the paper added.

Halloran has also been accused of pocketing bribes from a consultant in exchange for $80,000 in City Council funding, the newspaper said.

Just five days before his arrest Tuesday, Smith tweeted, “The theme of this week is ‘Tell the Truth.'”

The mayor of Spring Valley, Noramie F. Jasmin, and her deputy were also arrested Tuesday morning as part of the corruption investigation. It wasn’t immediately clear how they were connected to the scheme.

“These six officials built a corridor of corruption and greed from Queens and The Bronx to Rockland County and all the way to Albany,” said Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District.

“After all the public corruption scandals we’ve charged, the sad truth may be the most powerful special interest in politics is self interest.”

Yes, we can close schools: Rahm Emanuel’s cash crisis in Chicago



1 / 1
Maria Llanos watches on as her daughter hugs a friend at the soon-to-close Lafayette School in Chicago
(Independent) -More than 10 per cent of Chicago’s elementary schools are facing closure under plans to tackle the city’s $1bn education budget deficit – the largest mass shutdown of public schools in the United States in recent memory.

School officials have announced plans to close 53 elementary schools and a high school. In all, 61 school buildings will be shut down by the beginning of the next academic year in August, the country’s third-largest public school district has said.

The announcement sparked national horror yesterday as the sorry state of the city’s finances, which are well known locally, was highlighted to the country. Chicago isn’t alone. Other cities, including Detroit, which is now facing the possibility of what could be the largest municipal bankruptcy in US history, and Philadelphia, have resorted to shutting undersubscribed schools to save money. Chicago has closed scores of school buildings over the past decade.

The city’s problems – though less severe than elsewhere in the US – have similar root causes to those in places such as Detroit: burdensome pension liabilities accumulated in the boom times and falling birth rates have become too much to bear in the post-financial crisis world. With the national and regional economy still struggling, the money coming in to city coffers cannot keep up with Chicago’s commitments.

But the size of the closures announced have sparked concern, particularly as the institutions in question are primarily attended by African-American and Hispanic students, and are situated in low-income neighbourhoods. Officials led by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, however, say there are too many vacant seats in the city’s public school system.

The Chicago Teachers Union thinks otherwise, with its President Karen Lewis labelling the closures an “abomination.”

“This is cowardly and it is the ultimate bullying job. Our mayor should be ashamed of himself,” she told the Associated Press.

The closures will mean that many children will have to venture into neighbourhoods other than their own to attend classes, which is causing concern among parents given the high frequency of violent crime in certain parts of the city. Irene Robinson, 48, said six of her grandchildren attend the soon-to-be-closed Anthony Overton Elementary in the Bronzeville area. She said news of shutdown was “like a death in the family.”

“It’s that sad,” she told the Chicago Tribune. “What’s gonna happen to these kids? Kids are being killed right now. They [sic] innocent. Why put them in harm’s way? It’s sad. It’s scary. It’s outrageous.”

The head of the school district, Barbara Byrd-Bennett, defended the move, saying the system as its currently organised is not in the best interests of students.

“Every child in every neighbourhood in Chicago deserves access to a high quality education that prepares them to succeed in life, but for too long children in certain parts of Chicago have been cheated out of the resources they need to succeed because they are in under utilised, under-resourced schools,” she said. “As a former teacher and a principal, I’ve lived through school closings and I know that this will not be easy, but I also know that in the end this will benefit our children.”

On the slide: Mayor goes skiing

Much of the public anger at the school closures was today directed at Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a former chief of staff for President Barack Obama, who was on a skiing holiday with his family when the announcement was made.

“I find it extremely cowardly for the mayor’s administration to announce these actions while he is vacationing out of town,” Karen Lewis, the President of the Chicago Teachers Union, said. “They are also making this announcement days before… spring break.”

Mr Emanuel came to power in 2011 on a wave of support from black communities, but recent opinion polls have indicated that the issue of school closures – which affects mainly black and Hispanic pupils – has contributed to his sliding approval ratings – and because his children attend private school.

Chicago lawyer and education activist Matter Farmer joked on Twitter: “Asked, while skiing in Utah, about closing 50 CPS schools, Mayor Emanuel said he is offering thousands of kids the chance to head downhill.”

15,000 police for Obama’s visit to Israel



(TheUglyTruth) -This week, Israeli police focused primarily US president’s upcoming visit; vacations cancelled, ‘general rehearsal’ planned for Monday

ed note–for the record, so that no one can say that the discussion never took place, let us consider the words of former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky concerning Israel’s plan to assassinate then-US President George Herbert Walker Bush at the Madrid peace conference in 1991–

‘Since the Mossad had all the security arrangements in hand, it would not be a problem bringing the killers as close as they wanted to President Bush and then staging his assassination. In the ensuing confusion, the Mossad people would kill the ‘perpetrators,’ scoring yet another victory for the Mossad. With the assassins dead, it would be difficult to discover where the ‘security breach’ had been, except that several countries involved in the conference, such as Syria, were regarded as countries that assisted terrorists.’


Around 15,000 police will participate in efforts to secure US President Barak Obama throughout his visit next week. Israeli police will go into operational activity level, cancelling vacations and days off.

Over 5,000 officers will be involved in protecting the presidential entourage, which includes more than 600 people. In Jerusalem, there will be 3,000 active officers.

“We are preparing for even the gravest possibility and are not relying only on intelligence. We are taking into account every scenario that could develop,” said head of operations, Brigadier General Nissim Mor. “We are talking about a very complicated operation.”

Police are preparing for different scenarios ranging from an attempt to hurt the president, to the possibility of developments in the north or the south. There are also arrangements being made with the Palestinian Authority and at the beginning of next week police will launch a campaign to track down Palestinians residing illegally in Israel.

Mor said that activists of Peace Now and haredi groups intend to hold demonstrations throughout the visit. “The police will allow demonstrations as long as they are within legal limits,” Mor said.

Security personnel will be stationed at Ben Gurion Airport, as well as at the other locations Obama is scheduled to visit. Each of these locations will have a high ranking officer with operations and special forces soldiers at his disposal. Special police forces will accompany the nearly 60-vehicle presidential motorcade.

As part of the preparations, case scenarios will be played out on Friday with American security officials. The police will open a special center on Sunday that will provide information to the public regarding the Obama visit.

On Monday, a ‘general rehearsal’ will be held for all forces participating in the operation. Police Commissioner Yohanan Danino and senior police staff will all be involved.

CIA Head Sworn In On Draft Constitution WITHOUT Bill of Rights

(WashingtonsBlog) -The government has absolutely shred the Bill of Rights in the last decade or so.

New CIA boss John Brennan endorses torture, assassination of unidentified strangers (including Americans) without due process, and spying on all Americans.

As such, it is fitting that Mr. Brennan specially requested that he be sworn in on a draft of the Constitution lacking the Bill of Rights.

A draft which doesn’t even begin with the famous preamble we all know and love:

We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America ….

But rather starts with:

We the People of the States of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish the following Constitution for the Government of Ourselves and our Posterity….

That has a very different tone from the final version of the Constitution. And again, this version has no Bill of Rights.

Here’s the actual draft Brennan swore in on, courtesy of the National Archives (click any image for larger view):

The handwriting is that of George Washington.

Washington was a brave leader (but a terrible general). More importantly, he was one man … and the whole idea of the Bill of Rights is that the people have inalienable rights – e.g. no deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law – which cannot be taken away by any leader … including the president or the head of the CIA.

Obama: “I never want to make myself 100 percent clear with you guys.”

(DailyCaller) -In a press conference after his meeting with congressional leaders, President Barack Obama told reporters he “never” wants to make himself “100 percent clear” with members of the media.

“Just to make it 100 percent clear, you’d sign a budget that continued to fund the government even at the lower levels of the sequester even if you don’t prefer to do that,” a reporter asked Obama at the White House on Friday.

“Zach, I’m not going to — I never want to make myself 100 percent clear with you guys, but I think it’s fair to say that I made a deal for a certain budget, certain numbers. There’s no reason why that deal needs to be reopened. It was a deal that Speaker Boehner made, as well and all the leadership made, and if the bill that arrives on my desk is reflective of the commitments that we previously made, then obviously I would sign it.”

Obama was also asked why he couldn’t keep the Republican and Democrat leaders in a room and refuse to let them leave until an agreement is reached to replace the sequester.

“I am not a dictator, I’m the president,” Obama responded.


Programs That Should Be Cut – But Won’t Be Cut – From The Federal Budget



(Alt Market) - Washington is laying on the malaise pretty thick lately over automatic budget cuts set to take effect in March, with admonitions and partisan attacks galore. Of course, those of us who are educated in the finer points of our corrupt puppet government are well aware that the public debate between Democrats and Republicans amounts to nothing more than a farcical battle of Rock’Em Sock’Em Robots with only one set of hands behind the controls. The reality is, their decisions are scripted, their votes are purchased, and they knew months ago exactly how America’s fiscal cliff situation would progress. The drama that now ensues on the hill is meant for OUR benefit and distraction, and no one else.

The Obama Administration warns that “sequestration” (austerity) will result in a return to recession for the U.S. News Flash, folks! The country never left the recession that officially began in 2008. Sorry to burst that inflated recovery hopium bubble…

Janet Napolitano warns that cuts will result in a greater risk of terrorist attacks. Apparently, an extra $85 billion per year buys us complete safety from the Muslim boogeyman, though the DHS has been far more concerned with “homegrown extremists” (people like me) than Al-Qaeda lately…

The White House and DHS has warned that funding for border control may be diminished, and the southern border will be left “wide open” to infiltration. Apparently, the White House is not aware that the southern border is ALREADY wide open. If they were truly concerned about the porous border, maybe they would refrain from decisions to release over 10,000 illegal immigrants from holding before cuts have even been finalized, sending a clear message to Mexico that there will be no consequences for anyone sneaking into the U.S. without permission…

The DOD warns that cuts to defense will result in a weakened military posture for America, and yet, our posture has already been greatly weakened by our numerous illegal wars in the Middle East (some overt, some covert). I have yet to see any tangible assessments on how our continued presence in Iraq and Afghanistan has made our nation safer…

Let’s put all of this into perspective; America’s current annual deficits have exceeded $1 trillion for the past four years. Our official national debt has expanded nearly $7 trillion in the span of five years. Through QE3 (QE infinity), the Federal Reserve is now pumping over $85 billion (that we know about) per month into our financial system. And in March, the federal government is being asked to cut $85 billion over a span of six months?

It sure seems like a drop in the bucket compared to the massive expenditures already taking place. Yet, these moderate cuts are being heralded as a sign of fiscal apocalypse by the White House and others. Why? Because America has reached the point at which any disruption in government liquidity will damage our recovery fantasy, and the establishment is acclimating us to the coming crisis so that we don’t immediately take up our torches and pitchforks. The lie is so tenuous, that the fiat must forever flow, or the illusion crumbles. Not only must spending continue unabated, it must also EXPAND with each passing year in order to handle the growing liabilities of entitlements and interest payments on capital already borrowed. Even the smallest of cuts could indeed send our economy into a tailspin (with a little help from the Federal Reserve and reduced currency creation), because that’s exactly how desperate our circumstances are.

Of course, the establishment plans to make matters worse by applying cuts where they will be most painfully felt by the populace. The fear mongering is reaching fever pitch with threats of wide open borders, weakened military superiority, lost government jobs, unemployed teachers, etc. But let’s imagine, just for one blissful moment, that the government was NOT utterly criminal and subversive; what kind of cuts would an honest government make right now in order to counter the dangers of debt disintegration and dollar devaluation?

…I really don’t know because I’ve never lived under an honest government. I have little personal experience in how one would behave. However, here is what I would cut from the budget…

Unnecessary Foreign Aid

Will some cuts be made to foreign aid after “sequestration”. Yes. But nowhere near enough. The U.S. spends around $50 billion a year on foreign aid, including $3 billion in “direct assistance” to Israel (meaning they get a lot more money and equipment through indirect means), $2 billion to Iraq, $1.7 billion to Pakistan, $1.4 billion to Egypt, $1.2 billion to Haiti (the Hatians are the only people on the list so far that actually need the money), and $1 billion to Kenya (…Kenya?). The list goes on and on. Even Mexico gets around $400 million a year in foreign aid from the U.S.

The establishment has conditioned the general public to consider any suggestion of cutting foreign aid to be taboo. Politicians on both sides of the aisle will wail and scream at the thought of reducing aid to Israel or other Middle East nations. That said, the bottom line is that we cannot afford it. You may believe every dollar to these countries results in the thwarting of evil doers and the filled bellies of orphan children. It doesn’t matter, because we can’t afford it. You may believe the whole of America’s international reputation and diplomatic sway hangs in the balance over foreign aid expenditures, but this is irrelevant, because we can’t afford it.

The most detrimental threats to the U.S. are INTERNAL and financial, not external, and cutting foreign aid would alleviate those detrimental threats by about $50 billion dollars. I’m a little tired of hearing how America is supposed to “export democracy” and keep its fingers in the cookie jars of nations around the world. This is a globalist philosophy that has never borne fruit and never will. It is time to bring the money back home where it might actually do some legitimate good.

Occupation Wars

The Neo-Cons played the American people like a banjo for nearly a decade claiming first that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were necessary in order to defuse Al Qaeda influence. Then, when we realized that the resource rich fields of the Middle East were the true target, rather than the “terrorists”, they changed their tune and claimed that now it would be “irresponsible” to leave the region, regardless of the fallacy of the mission, because if we did innocent people would be left to chaos and ruin.

Ultimately, the Neo-Cons never cared about the innocent citizens of Iraq or Afghanistan, they only cared about manipulating the American public into acquiescing to continued occupation, and that is exactly what they did. Today, the Obama Administration carries on exactly where the Neo-Cons left off, using the same propaganda and the same lies with a new face and a new presentation.

Original cost estimates of the two invasions were around $100 billion for a two year involvement, and the American people were assured that this was all that was needed. Today, over a decade later, the costs have escalated to at least $4 trillion (Obama’s claim of a $1 trillion price tag is an outright fabrication), and still have not abated. If the government truly wanted to save massive amounts of capital and shield the populace from debilitating service and entitlement cuts, they would bring the troops home; ALL OF THEM, and stop flushing money down the toilet in the Middle East.

Instigations Of Foreign Insurgencies

Why is the Obama Administration continually pouring money into the coffers of Middle Eastern insurgencies led by Al Qaeda operatives that supposedly hate the U.S.? They did it in Egypt, they did it in Libya, and now they are doing it in Syria. Is Obama an idiot, or, is there a greater purpose at work? Is the goal to deliberately destabilize the region, or are they doing it out of blind hubris and stupidity? In either case, all the money being showered on these civil wars is a wretched waste, and should be stopped.

TSA Thugs

The Transportation Security Administration is the most hated institution in America. It is reviled across the country and its dubious purpose is questioned by almost everyone. Americans, no matter how uneducated and oblivious, still do not like being molested by blue gloved bureaucratic freaks with preexisting criminal records. We do not like having our small children molested by them either. We do not like being irradiated so that our naked pictures can be stored in a central database. We do not like thugs, brown shirts or blue shirts, ordering us around and looking down their noses at us. Frankly, Americans have a history of shooting those kinds of people…

DHS head Janet Napolitano has already released warnings ahead of budget cut decisions stating that the TSA may be on the chopping block, and that this would put American travelers “at risk”. I highly doubt that this is the plan, though…

The TSA is not meant to protect the citizenry in any way. It is a conditioning machine for the masses, and nothing more. It is designed to inhibit our natural rebellion against personal search and seizure tactics, and make us apathetic to deeper intrusions into our privacy. That is all. I find it highly unlikely that the establishment would dismantle such a useful tool of oppression. But, if Napolitano is sincere, then I say go for it Janey, do your worst! Abolish the whole damned agency, because if you don’t, eventually, we’ll do it for you.

The Criminal ATF

The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms has a long history of questionable and often illegal activities, usually ending with the murder of civilians with dissenting views. However, the latest snafu involves a much larger conspiracy, culminating in the agency being caught red handed feeding American weapons to violent Mexican drug cartels in an effort to stigmatize gun ownership in the U.S. and to wrongly attribute deaths in the border region to American gun dealers. This debacle is known as “Fast and Furious”.

Eric Holder, Attorney General of the U.S. and a staunch proponent of the ATF, has defended the Fast and Furious agenda to the point of contempt of Congress. Holder is a gun control advocate and key player in the current attacks on the 2nd Amendment, despite his habit of protecting agencies that feed weapons to psychopathic drug lords.

Any agency with this much schizophrenic disregard for the rights and safety of Americans should be wiped from the ass-end of history. It also has an annual budget of $1.2 billion, which could be spent in far better places, to be sure.

Big Brother DHS

What exactly does the Department of Homeland Security do that the FBI and the CIA did not already do before its inception? The great lie spread in the wake of 9/11 was that various alphabet agencies were not “in communication” with each other, and that intelligence gathered was not “reaching the right people”. Of course, Bush had received several warnings pre-9/11 of impending attacks, and the FBI and CIA on more than one occasion had the opportunity to apprehend Osama Bin Laden, but were thwarted by the Administration itself, sending a clear message that the government catches “terrorists” only when it WANTS to catch a terrorist.

The DHS was established as a means to centralize information sharing, but it has become much more. It now encompasses and directs much of the internal law enforcement outfits of the U.S. through so-called fusion centers, and even plays a growing role in external matters. Much of the analytical paperwork coming out of the agency, though, does not deal with foreign enemies like Al Qaeda. Rather, the agency is almost obsessively focused on “domestic threats”, like returning war veterans, Constitutionalists, gun rights champions, Ron Paul supporters, and Liberty Movement activists.

In the end, the DHS is intended to combat a specific opponent, and that opponent is obviously the American people.

The DHS is set to absorb $2.6 billion in cuts if sequestration goes though, causing the organization to spew dire prophecies of doom. Yet, the DHS is projected to have a $9 billion surplus by the end of 2013, and apparently has enough funding to place orders for over 2 billion rounds of combat ammunition (not for training purposes, sorry disinfo-agents). I say cut the head off the beast. Remove DHS, save American liberties, and spend those billions elsewhere.

Gitmo-Style Black Sites

I find it highly distasteful and disturbing that the U.S. government is operating black sites like GITMO where they can torture and murder in obscurity, rather than having to answer to the public, all while instituting these activities in our name. The common argument is that these prisons are necessary to isolate the most volatile of villains, and obtain vital data in the war on terror. Well, despite what you may have seen in the movie ‘Zero Dark Thirty’, torture rarely if ever produces reliable and concurrent intel that can be acted upon to prevent any impending attack, or apprehend any enemy agent. And, after what we saw at Abu Ghraib, the government has proven itself absolutely untrustworthy to handle incarcerated prisoners in any capacity, let alone in places where independent oversight does not exist.

Didn’t Obama make a campaign promise in 2008 to shut down GITMO, by the way? Why not do it now, save the country some cash, and end a disgusting and immoral practice that demeans the whole of our society?

Domestic Drone Programs

Why does the federal government need 30,000 drones in the skies over the heads of American citizens? Why is this being pursued? If the government seeks to make war on the American people, then by all means, admit that this is the goal and at least we will know the rationalization for spreading a spider’s web of remote controlled technotronic death from sea to shining sea. This is the only POSSIBLE purpose that such a fleet of drones could serve. If this is not the reason for the escalation of drone activity, then there is no logical reason, and they should be perfectly willing to end these programs, saving the U.S. millions if not billions of dollars.

Corporate Welfare

Long before the banker bailouts and the “too big to fails”, government has been pouring free money into the coffers of international corporations that were already claiming billions in capital. This welfare has reached epic levels; around $93 billion by some estimates. Why? Maybe because the establishment knew years ago that these companies were headed for debt implosion. Or, maybe because D.C. is a revolving door and corporate vampires like to spend time in the public sector bleeding taxpayers dry. I don’t know. What I do know is that whatever purpose corporate welfare was supposed to serve, it failed. We are in the midst of the most extensive economic crisis of all time, and many of the companies that received welfare for the past couple decades are debt addled failures that provide little in job creation. It’s time to cut our losses…

The Obama Family’s Extravagant Vacations

All this panicked discussion on budget cuts, yet, no one seems to be talking about reducing the most frivolous of expenditures. The Obama family’s four trips to Hawaii alone have cost Americans tax payers at least $20 million (this is a very conservative estimate)! Why is the nation pounding its collective head against the wall over extreme national debt obligations while this joker and his overprivileged family are spending a thousand times more on each of their vacations than any other citizen?

Hey Obama, try a trip to Florida, you money swilling bastard! Maybe you could squeeze it in for under a million? Take a swim in the Everglades perhaps, the water is fine…

One Day Soon, Everything Will Be Cut…

If Americans are frightened of a small budget cut of $85 billion, imagine what they’ll do when they realize this is just the beginning of the avalanche. It will not be long before our foreign creditors turn away from the Dollar and begin using alternative currencies like the IMF’s SDR basket. At that point, the purchasing power of the Greenback will be severely suffocated, and the numerous social services the public enjoys today will be buried as well.

Some people might question why I did not include any entitlement programs or social support in my list of needed budget cuts. I would only point out that such programs are not long for this world anyway, and though most of them shouldn’t exist in the first place, the expenditures listed above are even more peripheral. The feds will keep welfare going for as long as possible, in order to subdue public response and soften collective rage, but there will come a time when the food stamps, medicare, disability payments, and other subsidies will suddenly stop. EU members like Spain are a perfect example, stealing over 90% of social security funds in order to maintain a façade of solvency, while others are raiding retirement funds and employee pensions, all because austerity measures are exhausting entitlement pools. This is where the U.S. is headed, and it cannot be avoided. Not through fiat printing, or any other nonsensical strategy.

My goal was to merely point out that there are plenty of irrelevant federal appendages out there that could be amputated, but probably won’t be, while other more useful programs will come under fire. In the end, the budget cuts are not about saving money; they are about social maneuvering and political gain. They will be used as an excuse for everything, and will produce nothing favorable, not because cuts are not needed, but because the people in charge of them are not trustworthy.

Stonewall: Ashley Judd to Refuse Reporter Questions at GWU Event



Actress Ashley Judd, a potential 2014 Democratic U.S. Senate challenger to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, will refuse to take questions from the press at an event this afternoon at George Washington University.

(Breitbart) -Event organizers told reporters here at the event on the GWU campus in the Foggy Bottom area of Washington, D.C., that she will only take a few questions from students if that.

One organizer said security around her is tight and that they will be whisking her in and out.

Judd’s refusal to answer press questions comes as President Barack Obama’s White House has waged an attack campaign against veteran Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward.

Judd is set to give remarks to the GW School of Public Health and Health Services.

In her introduction of Judd, GW Dean Lynn Goldman ironically praised the presence of multiple journalists in the crowd, saying she was “thrilled” reporters are here despite their inability to ask Judd any questions.


Do As We Say, Congress Says, Then Does What It Wants

(ProPublica) -When CBS News reported in 2011 [1] that members of Congress weren’t prohibited from insider trading, Congress moved swiftly.President Obama signed a law [2] banning it within six months of the broadcast.

But Congress is still exempt [3] from portions of a number of federal laws, including provisions that protect workers in the private sector but don’t apply to the legislative branch’s approximately 30,000 employees.


Here’s our rundown of measures Congress exempts itself from:

  • Whistleblower Protections: Congress passed the Whistleblower Protection Act in 1989, which protects workers in the executive branch from retaliation for reporting waste, mismanagement or lawbreaking. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act gives similar protections to private-sectors workers. But legislative-branch workers — a category that includes congressional staffers as well as employees of the Library of Congress, the Architect of the Capitol and other offices —don’t get the same protections.
  • Subpoenas for Health and Safety Probes: The Occupational Health and Safety Act empowers the U.S. Department of Labor to investigate health and safety violations in private-sector workplaces. If an employer doesn’t cooperate, the agency can subpoena the records it needs. The Office of Compliance, the independent agency that investigates such violations in the legislative branch, doesn’t have the power to issue those subpoenas.
  • Keeping Workplace Records: A number of workplace-rights laws — the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and others — require employers to retain personnel records for a certain period of time. But as a recent report [4] on the congressional workplace notes, “Congress has exempted itself from all of these requirements.” Congress is also exempt from keeping records of injuries and illness the way private-sector employers are.
  • Prosecution for Retaliating Against Employees: If a private-sector employer retaliates against a worker for reporting health or safety hazards, the Department of Labor can investigate and, if necessary, sue the employer. Congress’ Office of Compliance doesn’t have that power — legislative-branch employees must file suit personally and pay their own legal fees.
  • Posting Notices of Workers’ Rights: Workplace-rights laws require employers to post notices of those rights, which often appear in office lunchrooms. Congress is exempt from this requirement, though this has little real-world impact. The Office of Compliance sends legislative employees the same information each year, formatted “in a manner suitable for posting.”
  • Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Retaliation Training: The No Fear Act requires agencies in the executive branch to provide such training to employees, but the legislative branch is exempt.
  • The Freedom of Information Act: The public can request information from federal agencies, but Congress, the federal courts and some parts of the Executive Office of the President are exempt.

In addition to sparing itself from complying with measures it has made mandatory for others, Congress is violating of some of the laws that do apply to it, according to a recent report [5] from the Office of Compliance. (The pint-sized agency, created by Congress in 1995, is responsible for enforcing a number of workplace-rights laws in the legislative branch.) The sidewalks surrounding the three House office buildings, the report noted, don’t comply [6] with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Neither do the restrooms in the House and Senate office buildings and the Library of Congress’ James Madison Building.

The Office of Compliance cites certain congressional exemptions as particularly problematic. The agency’s inability to subpoena information regarding some legislative workers’ complaints about health and safety often means the office must negotiate with congressional offices to gather the facts it needs.

“It can tie our hands sometimes,” said Barbara J. Sapin, the office’s executive director.

The Office of Compliance has urged Congress to apply the laws listed above to itself — except the Freedom of Information Act — with little result. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the non-voting delegate who represents the District of Columbia, introduced a bill [7] in 2011 to do this, but it died in committee.

The number of complaints [8] of discrimination and harassment filed by legislative-branch workers with the Office of Compliance has nearly doubled in the last two years, from 102 in the 2009 fiscal year [9] to 196 in the 2011 fiscal year [5]. Workers’ complaints about retaliation or intimidation have risen even more sharply, from 36 in fiscal year 2009 to 108 in fiscal year 2011.

Even so, Debra Katz, a Washington lawyer who specializes in workplace-rights law, said some Capitol Hill employees might be holding back from filing complaints. House and Senate staffers, she said, are often reluctant to speak up about harassment or discrimination for fear of jeopardizing their careers.

“People are very loath to burn bridges by filing a complaint or going to the Office of Compliance,” she said. “They don’t want to go forward with bringing a claim, even when it’s covered under the law.”

US taxpayers are set to lose $27 billion from financial bailout: Report

American taxpayers are expected to lose USD 27 billion from the 2008 financial bailout.

American taxpayers are expected to lose USD 27 billion from the 2008 financial bailout.
(PressTV)American taxpayers are expected to lose USD 27 billion from the 2008 financial bailout, as a report reveals further losses attributed to the US Treasury Department.

US taxpayers can expect to lose even more than the estimated USD 22 billion made in the fall last year, due to increased losses for the Treasury Department on sales of shares in bailed-out companies, according to a report released on Wednesday by the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

The report said taxpayers could lose USD 5.5 billion specifically on Ally Financial - formerly called GMAC under a partnership with General Motors - in losses based on unsafe mortgages given right before the financial crisis. Ally owes USD 14.6 billion of the USD 17.2 billion in assistance it received.

The US government would also need to sell all General Motors shares it holds at USD 71.86 per share, more than double the current price of USD 28. GM still owes USD 21.6 billion of the USD 49.5 billion bailout it received.

“Taxpayers saved GMAC, and they should not be put in the position of needing to save the company again,” said Special Inspector General Christy Romero, adding that both Ally and General Motors owe more than half of the USD 67.3 billion still owed to taxpayers by companies that were bailed out during the financial crisis.

The government watchdog went on to reveal fraud related to TARP during investigations that subsequently led to criminal charges against 119 people, including 82 senior company executives.

This comes as Romero accused the Treasury Department for providing “excessive” pay for executives tied to the bailed-out corporations rescued from the financial crisis including General Motors, Ally Financial and AIG - the largest bailout recipient at USD 182 billion.

After the 2008 financial crisis, Congress authorized USD 700 billion for the bailout of some of America’s largest companies. About USD 413 billion was eventually issued.

“Illegal Immigrants” can now apply for driver’s licenses in Illinois

(CAV News) - The governor of Illinois just signed into law a bill that will allow illegal immigrants to apply for a driver’s license.

The law will go into effect later this year.

The state is hoping roughly 40 percent will comply with the new law out of roughly 250,000 illegals driving now.

What the bill will do:  In October: those applying for it will get a temporary license that will be good for up to three years.

Illinois will join the ranks of three other states, who allow others, who are here illegally, to drive legally. Those states are : Washington, New Mexico and Utah.

Well looks like the politicians in Illinois are finding creative ways to gain new votes by way of driver’s licenses. Welfare benefits aren’t enough.

Last year, End Of The American Dream blog, reported a government site called “Welcome To The USA.” The site encourages those here illegally to apply for welfare benefits:

The cost of each license card will be $30.

Here’s some requirements according to Channel 14 News:

- Submit to facial recognition software, but no fingerprinting.
- Provide proof of written signature, proof of date of birth and a letter of ineligibility for a Social Security number.
- Show valid passport from a home country or a consular identification card, and two documents that show a minimum one-year residency in the state.
- Receive drivers training and undergo vision screening, written and driving tests.
- Purchase insurance.
The purple-bordered card will be different from regular licenses, and valid only for driving purposes. It cannot be used as a form of identification, meaning licenses can’t be used to buy a firearm, register to vote or board a plane.
By: Derek Wood
Sources: Channel 14, Intel Hub, End of The American Dream,
Thanks to: Rick Liljenberg!

Rand Paul vs. Hillary Clinton, clash of titans

(CNN) — If Monday’s inauguration displayed the gushing, ceremonial aspect of American democracy, Wednesday revealed its more sober and confrontational side — a Senate committee hearing. The hearing was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton vs. the Republicans on the painful subject of Benghazi, Libya.

After a lot of anger from the senators and a surprising amount of emotion from Clinton, the final score was a draw. But some Republicans did better than others, and Clinton probably emerges with a healthier reputation than the administration that she’s leaving. Moreover, the debate throws up some tantalizing “what ifs” about 2016. Is America ready for Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul?

Timothy Stanley

To take Clinton first, it’s remarkable how much her role as secretary of state has transformed her.

Five things we learned from the Benghazi hearings

To conservatives, she was once the Lady Macbeth of liberalism; the feminist power behind Bill Clinton’s throne whose every utterance seemed calculated to upset the right. Her book “It Takes a Village” was greeted like a manifesto of anti-American collectivism — so much so that Rick Santorum felt compelled to pen a response called “It Takes a Family.” But secretaries of state often find themselves elevated from partisan politics in to the heavenly realm of “national interest” (think Henry Kissinger or Colin Powell), and therein Clinton has redefined herself as a competent and admirable public servant.

Consider John McCain’s first words at the Senate hearing: “We thank you for your outstanding and dedicated service to this nation and … all over the world where I travel, you are viewed with admiration and respect.” Given her extraordinary hard work and efforts to advance the rights of women and children, she has certainly earned that respect. It’s found in ample supply at home, too. According to Gallup, the former controversialist is now America’s “most admired woman.”

But even if Clinton did get through the hearing with her reputation intact, that doesn’t mean that Benghazi doesn’t leave scars on the administration. The critical — and most electric — round of questioning was started by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin. He demanded to know why Clinton didn’t try to find out what was really happening on the ground sooner and why the administration persisted so long in refusing to label the Benghazi incident a “terrorist attack.”

Clinton’s defense was similar to Obama’s during the presidential election: something went wrong, we didn’t want to interfere with ground operations and it took a long time to gather the intelligence to know what really happened.

But Clinton lost her cool and summed up that position in a breathtakingly callous phrase: “What difference, at this point, does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, senator.” All the difference in the world, I would imagine, to the relatives of the personnel who died.

This rare loss of composure perhaps underlines the weakness of the administration’s case.

The White House seems to think — as John Hayward at the Conservative website Human Events puts it bluntly — “the game ends when they say the magic phrase ‘I take responsibility,’ and they win.” But it does not.

Part of “learning” from the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is admitting the basic errors that were made and providing the public with a clearer narrative of what really happened. But all we have at the moment are a catalog of errors that make up a very confusing story.

Clinton tears up at Benghazi hearing

Clinton’s heated exchange over Benghazi

Johnson: ‘Surprised’ by Clinton reaction

Ayotte: So many unaswered questions

It’s obvious that the political situation in Libya is not more stable since Moammar Gadhafi was removed from office(just ask any Algerian), that insufficient security was provided at the consulate, that the administration fumbled its explanation of what occurred on September 11, 2012, that the rescue operation was delayed and that the CIA had some shadowy role to play in the whole mess. Clinton’s assurance that “I do feel responsible” is not reason enough to stop asking these questions and just move on.

Who then made the best case for the prosecution from the Republican side?

Given that Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida was participating, it felt at moments like an audition for 2016 — and Rubio’s staff put the video of his questions up on his website with remarkable speed.

Clinton lays out daunting security challenges in North Africa

But the most impressive performance by far was from Rand Paul. He delivered a cool, withering statement that climaxed in this devastating paragraph (and you have to watch it to get the full effect): “I’m glad that you’re accepting responsibility. I think ultimately with your leaving that you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11. And I really mean that. Had I been president and found you did not read the cables from Benghazi and from Ambassador (Christopher) Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post. I think it’s inexcusable.”

This performance might be — and should be — remembered well by the Republican base when the primary campaign of 2016 starts. Ever since the last president election, Rand Paul hasn’t set a foot wrong. From his bridge-building visit to Israel to his opposition to the fiscal cliff deal, he seems well placed to become the tea party candidate.

And what an unusually satisfying choice Clinton vs. Paul would be.

It would be a genuine contest between big government liberalism and small government conservatism: Clinton’s internationalism and support for welfare programs vs. Paul’s anti-interventionism and opposition to pork.

The question of who could win such an unusual contest is difficult to answer. The Paul family has a tradition of winning votes from Democrats, but Clinton’s new respectability could also pull votes away from the Republicans. One Kentucky poll found that in a head-to-head contest, she’d even beat Rand in his home state of Kentucky.

It would be a campaign that any elections scholar would relish.

Anti-War Protester Interrupts Hearing, Kerry Says Outburst ‘Good Exclamation Point for My Testimony’


Obama-KerryPresident Obama announces his nomination of Sen. John Kerry as the next secretary of state, at the White House on Friday, Dec. 21, 2012. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)


( – A heckler interrupted Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) opening remarks at his confirmation hearing on Thursday to become the next Secretary of State, an outburst that Kerry defended as indicative of American democracy and which reminded him of his own political action against the Vietnam war some 42 years ago.

The young woman, dressed in a pink hat, called for an end to U.S. involvement in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

After the heckler was removed from the room by Capitol Police, Kerry said the woman reminded him of his time as an anti-Vietnam war activist who, along with other protestors, “wanted to have our voices heard.”


During his testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Kerry implied that freedom of speech is part of American democracy and said the protestor’s shouts were “a good explanation point to my testimony.”

In his opening prepared statement, Kerry referred to his military service during the Vietnam War but did not mention his testimony in 1971 before the same committee about some U.S. troops committing atrocities, such as raping civilians and beheading victims.

“And as we talk about war and peace and foreign policy, I want us all to keep in our minds the extraordinary men and women in uniform who are on the front lines, the troops at war who help protect America,” Kerry said. “As a veteran, I will always carry the consequences of our decisions in my mind and be grateful that we have such extraordinary people to back us up.”

Kerry is expected to be easily confirmed and will replace Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when she steps down in March.

Bibi still in charge despite losing ground on Iran and settlements

(RT) -With nearly all the votes counted, Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud-Beitenu bloc is claiming victory in Israeli parliamentary elections. The Prime Minister has lost seats in the Knesset, but still remains the only likely head of the new government.

“I am proud to be your Prime Minister, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity, for the third time, to lead the state of Israel,” Netanyahu told a cheering crowd at his campaign headquarters.

After nearly all the votes are in, Netanyahu’s Likud-Beitenu holds the most number of Knesset seats with 31; a significant loss from the previous 42. Their position in the parliament now will depend on the coalition they manage to form. The preliminary count shows right and centrist-left parties face off with a tie of 60 to 60 seats in the 120-seat parliament. No doubt though, Netanyahu is firmly in the lead, and all eyes will turn to how much support he gets from potential allies.

The centrist Yesh Atid – the surprise of the election – gets 19 seats, and they have not yet responded to Netanyahu’s call for cooperation. The Labor party came third with 15 seats.

With the final face of the government yet to be determined, the rise of the centrists indicates Israelis want more social change in place.

Israelis are growingly becoming more aware of the deteriorating economy of their country, of the gap between the rich and the poor,” says Ramzy Baroud, Palestinian-American journalist and editor for “Netanyahu may use the Iran scenario to distract the public from the problems that the coalition government is soon to face,” he adds.

In turn, Netanyahu has re-stated Iran’s nuclear problem as the priority for the government to be:

“The first challenge was and remains preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,” he said as soon as first exit polls appeared.

Israel’s current itch to strike Iran and put an end to its nuclear ambitions may be the only ‘real’ thing that stands in the way of fixing fences with the US, believes Jamal Abdi, the policy director of the National Iranian American Council. Netanyahu insists the time for military action is running out and Iran is about to get a nuclear bomb.

Having promoted the idea of a strike with the White House, but failing to find support, Netanyahu is now readying his country to take unilateral action against Iran, a move very unlikely to find sympathy with the US. Other widely-discussed and criticized policies of the Israeli government, such as the Palestinian-Israeli dynamic, or illegal building in the West bank, are of little interest to the White House, says Jamal Abdi, “the only source of friction that might be there is the issue of Iran.”

Whatever coalition will come to power as the result of the election, it won’t affect Israel’s policy on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and settlement construction, political analysts believe.

Israeli bulldozers will not slow down for a minute whether it be a coalition with its bulk coming from Yesh Atid or a coalition exclusively or largely reliant on the ultra-orthodox or the ultra-nationalist. If you look into the record of Israeli governments, whether the two terms of Benjamin Netanyahu or previous governments under the Labor party or Kadima, nothing really changed on the ground the settlements continue to grow,”  Ramzy Baroud told RT.

“There is a consensus within Israeli society, the Israeli political elite, that the issue of the settlements is the issue that cannot be bargained upon, the differences are mostly tactical” he added. “As for the peace process, things will at a stand still, there is no peace process, there hasn’t been a peace process for years and most likely there won’t be a peace process under Netanyahu or under the mentality by which Israel is governed“.

Report: Former French President Sarkozy to Flee Country over Taxes

(Breitbart) -How does French President François Hollande know when he’s raised taxes too high? Perhaps when his predecessor makes plans to leave the country to avoid paying them.

Francois Hollande’s proposed tax increase on the rich is proving so onerous that former president Nicolas Sarkozy is reportedly planning to move himself and his money to London.

In so doing, he will join the ranks of other famous French citizens, like Gerard Depardieu, who have fled France to escape Hollande’s socialist reach as well.

In December 2012, France’s Constitutional Council threw out Hollande’s 75% income tax rate on France’s top earners, ruling it was unconstitutional for applying only to individual earnings. The ruling Socialist Party vowed to rewrite the law and pass it again.

Military Think-Tank Says Constitutionalists Are a Dangerous & Violent Threat


(Occupy Corporatism) -According to a paper entitled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right” published by Combating Terrorism Center, a think-tank at the West Point US Military Academy that the “far-right”, “anti-federalist” and groups that support “civil activism, individual freedoms and self-government” are dangerous as “racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.”

The paper asserts that Islamic extremists are coercing populations in the Middle East, Africa and Asia to assist them in gaining power with the purpose of over-throwing the US government and its allies.

In 2012, the US Armed Forces have announced wars within its ranks as they claim white supremacists are joining the military to infiltrate and overthrow what is referred to as the Zionist Occupation Government (ZOG).

The purveying scheme includes a secret infiltration of racists who are expressly trying to divide the US military. However, the controllers of this concept are the FBI-sponsored Southern Poverty Law (SPLC) Center and Anti-Defamation League (ADL) who are working with the military to train soldiers on how to spot extremists in their ranks. This is the military’s answer to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) See Something, Say Something campaign to create Stasi out of ordinary citizens.

The document states that these “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”

It goes on to correlate modern movements supporting a return to a Constitutional Republic as being violent conservatives living in the past. The report reads: “While liberal worldviews are future- or progressive -oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo.” the report says. “The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community.”

The report claims “while far-right groups’ ideology is designed to exclude minorities and foreigners, the liberal-democratic system is designed to emphasize civil rights, minority rights and the balance of power.”

Back in 2011, Vice President Joe Biden accused the Tea Party of having “acted like terrorists” asserting that “we have negotiated with terrorists. This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.” This comment came on the heels of assertions that talking to representatives affiliated with the Tea Party are liken to discussing buracracy with Republicans with “guns to their heads” referencing that the Tea Party wielded violent authority of the political party.

In 2010, the “US Army’s Operating Concept 2016-2028” was published and explains how armed forces in the US and overseas will behave in the future. Specific tactical operations, special “theater”, and organized forces are outlined along with the capabilities and priorities of the US armed divisions. In simple terms: a full spectrum operations manual that details stratagems both domestic and foreign.

As outlined in the Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB) processes are defined by operational environments in regard to battle space, effects, evaluation of threats and adversaries while determining the course of action. In regard to civil situations, and to maintain intelligence and operational purposes, preparations with regard to terrain are inconsequential.

The Marine Corp Intelligence Requirements Handbooks presents new methodology to combat civilian rebellions and is meant to inspire intelligence professionals working on computer-based intelligence efforts.

Contained within the US Army Military Police training manual for Civil Disturbance Operations are outlines describing how the US military will use the arsenal at their disposal to quell domestic riots, confiscate firearms and kill Americans during times of mass civil unrest.

The explicit use of “deadly force” when confronting “dissidents” is clearly stated with the refusal of a “warning shot” and the directives toward weapons that rioters or demonstrators will experience in the name of continuity of government.

According to Doug Haggman’s DHS informant the plan concerning a false flag attack will coincide with a staged assignation attempt on Obama that will be linked to a white supremacist group that will be used to incite black and Hispanic Americans into starting riots all across the nation.

In this scenario a race war will be the situation needed to implement martial law effectively locking down the US, US Army control of the urban cities, erecting DHS checkpoints on all major points of travel, severe restrictions on travel for all citizens and the suspension of elections to ensure that Obama remain seated as the President of the US.

The DHS informant stated: “The DHS is actively preparing for massive social unrest inside the United States. He then corrected himself, stating that ‘a civil war’ is the more appropriate term. Certain elements of the government are not only expecting and preparing for it, they are actually facilitating it.”

Reported in Haaretz back in 2010 the “Obama’s election may usher a political climate that could produce an assassination attempt…It is most likely, though, to be a lone assassin, rather than an organized network.”

The manufactured threat of US veterans stems from the 2009 Department of Homeland Security report entitled Rightwing Extremism. This report clearly outlined that veterans, because of their diverse training in tactical operations, would be a decisive threat to the US government’s plans to declare martial law against the American public in the near future. Defined in the document were domestic extremists, particularly white supremacists, were proposed to be the newest and most dangerous threat to the US since al-Qaeda.

While admitting that the agency had no definitive proof that “domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, [however] rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.”

The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force have indicated to owners of gun shops and gun ranges the US government’s new definitions of domestic terrorist that coincide with their demonization of US veterans and propaganda claims that domestic terrorists are more of a threat than their manufactured insurgent groups like al-Qaeda and the Free Syrian Army.

Mainstream media has spun the propaganda perfectly by asserting that “the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”

This plot hatched over a decade ago to frame veterans as the new terrorist Boogeyman is being played out in the theater of reality as more instances of staged attacks may be looming in the not so distant future. With intentions on destroying the 2nd Amendment, along with demonizing US troops have obvious implications. Former military are trained in tactical operations and could pose a threat to the marital law scenario that the DHS is planning on implementing just in time for the collapse of the US dollar.

27th Amendment gets publicity in budget battle


(Yahoo) -One of the least known constitutional amendments is getting a lot of publicity as a wild card in the ongoing budget battle in Washington.

The 27th Amendment is the most recent amendment, and there are many people who probably don’t remember what it stands for: congressional pay raises.

“No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened,” the amendment reads, as approved in 1992.

In short, the amendment states that a sitting Congress can’t change its pay while it is in session.

It’s not a new idea. The amendment was proposed back in 1789 by Founding Father James Madison along with other amendments that became the Bill of Rights, but it took 203 years for it to become the law of the land. In 1982, a college undergraduate student, Gregory Watson, discovered that the proposed amendment could still be ratified and started a grassroots campaign.

In 1992, Alabama became the 38th state to sign off on the 27th Amendment, making it a law.

Since then, the 27th Amendment has gotten very little publicity, expect for the occasional news story about Watson’s personal quest to get it passed.

That is, until late last week, when GOP House leaders proposed linking congressional pay to the budget debate. It didn’t take long for journalists and academics to recall the 27th Amendment.

On Monday, the House Rules Committee published its proposed bill, about one hour before President Barack Obama’s inauguration. House GOP leaders seemed convinced the proposed bill didn’t violate the 27th Amendment.

According to section 2 of the bill, a payroll administrator would withhold Congress’ pay after April 15, 2013, if it couldn’t agree on a fiscal year 2014 budget. The money would be held in an escrow account and given back to Congress members when a budget was passed or at the end of the current 113th Congress in January 1, 2015.

In exchange, Congress would suspend the debt ceiling until May 18, 2013.

Initially, House Oversight Committee chair Darrell Issa, a Republican, said he thought the bill was unconstitutional, according to a report on the website Roll Call. The site said Issa’s office quickly issued a statement, saying that “the final proposal brought before the House will have resolved any constitutional questions and that it will have my support.”

Others were quick to point out that withholding pay, even temporarily, would “vary” the compensation for Congress members, and in their opinion, presented a direct violation of the 27thAmendment.

Among the critics was UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, who gave a detailed explanation on the website Talking Points Memo.

“The answer is unclear because the 27th Amendment has never been authoritatively interpreted by the Supreme Court,” Winkler said in an email to the website. “Yet it seems almost certainly unconstitutional. Withholding pay effectively ‘var[ies] the compensation’ of lawmakers.”

Almost a year ago, the bipartisan political group No Labels said that a “No Budget No Pay” plan was constitutional, as long as the pay withholding took place in the Congress after the one that passed the plan.

“If Congress doesn’t act in 2012, a No Budget, No Pay law could not take effect until 2015 at the earliest—meaning we’re more likely to have another three years of budgetary dysfunction,” the group said as part of a lengthy explanation on its blog.

The House will vote on the measure on Wednesday and if approved, it will head to the Democrat-controlled Senate.

While the bill’s fate in the Senate is unknown, there was one clue this weekend that Senate Democrats will pursue their own budget for the first time since 2009, and may not have a lot to lose by passing the debt-ceiling bill.

Chuck Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, said not only will his caucus pursue a budget, but it will also seek to add more tax hikes in addition to spending cuts desired by Republicans.

The GOP House debt-ceiling plan also doesn’t address the issue of the sequestration, a forced $1.2 trillion in government spending cuts that will now go into effect in March.

If the 27th Amendment doesn’t get in the way and the debt ceiling is postponed until May, then the sequestration will become a key political issue. The steep sending cuts would likely lead to job losses in the private and defense sectors.

Fewer People Watched Obama’s 2nd Inauguration

(Derek Wood) - Only 38 percent of Americans either watched or listened to president Obama’s 2nd term inauguration. That number is way down from the 60 percent who watched his first inauguration back in 2009, according to Gallup.

This year’s numbers are actually lower than G.W. Bush’s 2nd term inauguration in 2005. Bush had a 40 percent turnout.

Wall Street Journal also said the number of people attending the ceremony was down this year. Officials expected the turnout to be lower than Obama’s first time being sworn in.

In the poll conducted by Gallup, the polling company found that only 37 percent of people are more hopeful during this term, which is down from the 62 percent, when Obama served his first term. In 2009, 87 percent of Democrats said they were hopeful compared to only 66 percent in 2013.



37 Statistics Which Show How Four Years Of Obama Have Wrecked The U.S. Economy



(Economic Collapse) -The mainstream media covered the inauguration of Barack Obama with breathless anticipation on Monday, but should we really be celebrating another four years of Obama? The truth is that the first four years of Obama were an absolute train wreck for the U.S. economy. Over the past four years, the percentage of working age Americans with a job has fallen, median household income has declined by more than $4000, poverty in the U.S. has absolutely exploded and our national debt has ballooned to ridiculous proportions. Of course all of the blame for the nightmarish performance of the economy should not go to Obama alone. Certainly much of what we are experiencing today is the direct result of decades of very foolish decisions by Congress and previous presidential administrations. And of course the Federal Reserve has more influence over the economy than anyone else does. But Barack Obama steadfastly refuses to criticize anything that the Federal Reserve has done and he even nominated Ben Bernanke for another term as Fed Chairman despite his horrific track record of failure, so at a minimum Barack Obama must be considered to be complicit in the Fed’s very foolish policies. Despite what the Obama administration tells us, the U.S. economy has been in decline for a very long time, and that decline has accelerated in many ways over the past four years. Just consider the statistics that I have compiled below. The following are 37 statistics which show how four years of Obama have wrecked the U.S. economy…

1. During Obama’s first term, the number of Americans on food stamps increased by an average of about 11,000 per day.

2. At the beginning of the Obama era, 32 million Americans were on food stamps. Today, more than 47 million Americans are on food stamps.

3. According to one calculation, the number of Americans on food stamps now exceeds the combined populations of “Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.”

4. The number of Americans receiving money directly from the federal government each month has grown from 94 million in the year 2000 to more than 128 million today.

5. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 146 million Americans are either “poor” or “low income” at this point.

6. The unemployment rate in the United States is exactly where it was (7.8 percent) when Barack Obama first entered the White House in January 2009.

7. When Barack Obama first entered the White House, 60.6 percent of all working age Americans had a job. Today, only 58.6 percent of all working age Americans have a job.

8. During the first four years of Obama, the number of Americans “not in the labor force” soared by an astounding 8,332,000. That far exceeds any previous four year total.

9. During Obama’s first term, the number of Americans collecting federal disability insurance rose by more than 18 percent.

10. The Obama years have been absolutely devastating for small businesses in America. According to economist Tim Kane, the following is how the number of startup jobs per 1000 Americans breaks down by presidential administration

Bush Sr.: 11.3

Clinton: 11.2

Bush Jr.: 10.8

Obama: 7.8

11. Median household income in America has fallen for four consecutive years. Overall, it has declined by over $4000 during that time span.

12. The economy is not producing nearly enough jobs for the hordes of young people now entering the workforce. Approximately 53 percent of all U.S. college graduates under the age of 25 were either unemployed or underemployed in 2011.

13. According to a report from the National Employment Law Project, 58 percent of the jobs that have been created since the end of the recession have been low paying jobs.

14. Back in 2007, about 28 percent of all working families were considered to be among “the working poor”. Today, that number is up to 32 percent even though our politicians tell us that the economy is supposedly recovering.

15. According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, only 24.6 percent of all of the jobs in the United States are “good jobs” at this point.

16. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the middle class is taking home a smaller share of the overall income pie than has ever been recorded before.

17. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the United States is losing half a million jobs to China every single year.

18. The United States has fallen in the global economic competitiveness rankings compiled by the World Economic Forum for four years in a row.

19. According to the World Bank, U.S. GDP accounted for 31.8 percent of all global economic activity in 2001. That number declined steadily over the course of the next decade and was only at 21.6 percent in 2011.

20. The United States actually has plenty of oil and we should not have to import oil from the Middle East. We need to drill for more oil, but Obama has been very hesitant to do that. Under Bill Clinton, the number of drilling permits approved rose by 58 percent. Under George W. Bush, the number of drilling permits approved rose by 116 percent. Under Barack Obama, the number of drilling permits approved actuallydecreased by 36 percent.

21. When Barack Obama took office, the average price of a gallon of gasoline was $1.84. Today, the average price of a gallon of gasoline is$3.26.

22. Under Barack Obama, the United States has lost more than 300,000 education jobs.

23. For the first time ever, more than a million public school students in the United States are homeless. That number has risen by 57 percent since the 2006-2007 school year.

24. Families that have a head of household under the age of 30 now have a poverty rate of 37 percent.

25. More than three times as many new homes were sold in the United States in 2005 as were sold in 2012.

26. Electricity bills in the United States have risen faster than the overall rate of inflation for five years in a row.

27. Health insurance costs have risen by 29 percent since Barack Obama became president.

28. Today, 77 percent of all Americans live paycheck to paycheck at least part of the time.

29. It is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls.

30. The total amount of money that the federal government gives directly to the American people has grown by 32 percent since Barack Obama became president.

31. The Obama administration has been spending money on some of the most insane things imaginable. For example, in 2011 the Obama administration spent $592,527 on a study that sought to figure out once and for all why chimpanzees throw poop.

32. U.S. taxpayers spend more than 20 times as much on the Obamas as British taxpayers spend on the royal family.

33. The U.S. government has run a budget deficit of well over a trillion dollars every single year under Barack Obama.

34. When Barack Obama was first elected, the U.S. debt to GDP ratio was under 70 percent. Today, it is up to 103 percent.

35. During Obama’s first term, the federal government accumulated more debt than it did under the first 42 U.S presidents combined.

36. As I wrote about yesterday, when you break it down the amount of new debt accumulated by the U.S. government during Obama’s first term comes to approximately $50,521 for every single household in the United States. Are you ready to contribute your share?

37. If you started paying off just the new debt that the U.S. has accumulated during the Obama administration at the rate of one dollar per second, it would take more than 184,000 years to pay it off.

But despite all of these numbers, the mainstream media and the left just continue to shower Barack Obama with worship and praise. Newsweek recently heralded Obama’s second term as “The Second Coming“, and at Obama’s pre-inauguration church service Reverand Ronald Braxton openly compared Obama to Moses…

At Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church, Braxton reportedly crafted his speech around Obama’s personal political slogan: “Forward!”

Obama, said Braxton, was just like Moses facing the Red Sea: “forward is the only option … The people couldn’t turn around. The only thing that they could do was to go forward.” Obama, said Braxton, would have to overcome all obstacles – like opposition from Republicans, presumably, or the bounds of the Constitution. Braxton continued, “Mr. President, stand on the rock,” citing to Moses standing on Mount Horeb as his people camped outside the land of Israel.

But it wasn’t enough to compare Obama with the founder of Judaism and the prophet of the Bible. Braxton added that Obama’s opponents were like the Biblical enemies of Moses, and that Obama would have to enter the battle because “sometimes enemies insist on doing it the hard way.”

So what do you think the next four years of Obama will bring?

This is not a joke: Newsweek (on its cover) Declares Obama Inauguration “The Second Coming”


(Against Crony Capitalism, Nick Sorrentino)If you have any doubt at all that the #oldmedia is anything but a propaganda wing at this point witness the “cover” of Newsweek this week.

I know there are more than a few fans of the president who read this site, and we are happy to have you. But please, tell me how anyone can defend this? Does this not give you the creeps? It is absolutely bizarre.

It’s no secret that I like Ron Paul, but had a publication done the same thing with Paul on the cover (I know) I would have vomited in my mouth too.

If there is a significant minority of Americans who think this sort of thing is perfectly fine (and I think there is) we are in trouble as a country. (Like that is a newsflash.)

obama nw

Poll: 75 percent want Hill term limits

(Politico) -Three out of four Americans support term limits for members of Congress, a  new poll finds.

According to a Gallup survey posted Friday, 75 percent of adults nationwide back  term limits for members of the House and the Senate, while 21 percent say they  would vote against term limits. Term limits received bipartisan support in the  poll: Republicans would back such a measure 82 percent-15 percent; independents  would do so 79 percent-17 percent and Democrats favored term limits 65  percent-29 percent, even as most incumbents won their races again in November,  Gallup noted.

This survey comes at a time when many Americans have a negative opinion of  the Hill. Gallup reported on Jan. 11 that Congress had an approval rating of  just 14 percent.

The poll also found that 63 percent of those surveyed would end the Electoral  College, while 29 percent would not support abolishing the institution. There  was little split along party lines for this question: Republicans support doing  away with the Electoral College 61 percent-30 percent; Democrats say the same,  66 percent-30 percent; as do independents, 63 percent-29 percent.


The survey of 1,013 adults in the United States was conducted Jan. 8-9 and  has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points


Former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin Indicted

(USA TODAY)   Former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin has been indicted on 21 federal corruption charges including wire fraud, bribery and money laundering.

The charges are the outgrowth of a City Hall corruption investigation that already has resulted in guilty pleas by two former city officials and two businessmen.

The counts include wire fraud, bribery, money laundering, filing false tax returns and conspiracy.

Nagin, a former cable television executive, was a political novice before being elected to his first term as mayor in 2002, buoyed by strong support from white voters.

Hurricane Katrina in 2005 elevated Nagin to the national stage, where he gained a reputation for colorful and sometimes cringe-inducing rhetoric.

During a radio interview broadcast in the storm’s early aftermath, he angrily pleaded with federal officials to “get every doggone Greyhound bus line in the country and get their asses moving to New Orleans.”

In January 2006, he apologized for a Martin Luther King Day speech in which he predicted New Orleans would be a “chocolate city” and asserted that “God was mad at America.”

Strong support from black voters helped Nagin win re-election in 2006 despite widespread criticism of his post-Katrina leadership. But the glacial pace of rebuilding, a surge in violent crime and the budding City Hall corruption investigation chipped away at Nagin’s popularity during his second term.

Nagin could not seek a third consecutive term because of term limits. Mitch Landrieu, who ran against Nagin in 2006, succeeded him in 2010.

Nagin has largely steered clear of the political arena since he left office. On his Twitter account, he describes his current occupations as author, public speaker and “green energy entrepreneur.” He wrote a self-published memoir called “Katrina’s Secrets: Storms After the Storm.”.

New Congress even wealthier after millionaire freshmen join its ranks

(RT) -The 113th Congress has become wealthier than the last, with incoming freshmen bringing in a median net worth of $1,066,515 each — about $1 million more than that of the average American.

While US citizens are getting poorer and increasingly applying for food stamps, the nation’s legislators are getting richer. Freshmen members of the 113th Congress have a median net worth that is about $100,000 higher than the net worth of all congressional members combined. All 535 members of Congress are worth an average $966,001 each, according to a new analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics.

A typical American household has a net worth of about $66,740 – a value that has been declining since the start of the most recent recession. Between 2007 and 2010, the median net worth of American households sank 47.1 percent. Food stamp enrollment increased by 15.5 million since 2009 and recent job creation figures show that low-paying jobs have largely replaced higher paying ones.

At a time when the majority is struggling financially, the nation’s leaders are accumulating more wealth.

“What’s [hard] to measure is whether these new legislators appreciate the financial pain people face and can effectively represent them despite the fact that they themselves are well off,” Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, told Open Secrets.

Almost 50 percent of the lawmakers have a net worth of more than $1 million, the wealthiest of which, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), was worth more than $500 million in 2011 and could be worth more than that today.

Often people focus on who’s up, who’s down and the number of millionaires in Congress. And of course we should monitor how representative our legislature is and whether someone is getting rich while in public office – and why,” Krumholz said, adding that many of these legislators invest in companies and could therefore also have conflicts of interests.

Adding the average net worth of each member of Congress comes out to about $4.5 billion. With many of its members being in the nation’s top “one percent”, the legislators’ rising incomes illustrate the increasing income gap during a time of economic struggles.

Americans living below the poverty line rose to 49.7 million last year – a record high which equates to 16 percent of the population. A recent study also shows that the US income gap is worse today than it was in 1774.

“The era when Washington economists and politicians could dismiss inequality as a second or third-tier issue may be ending,” wrote National Journal writer Jonathan Rauch. “And progressives, potentially, have a case against inequality that might put accusations of ‘class warfare’ and ‘politics of envy’ behind them.”

American Hypocrisy and Idiocracy in violence- Sold by the media bought up by the general public


(CAV News) - When the big bad Federal government and the darlings of corporate media want something discussed, then we discuss it. I’ve come to this conclusion years ago in my teenager days. Why it’s taking some so long to figure that out is beyond me.

This couldn’t be any more true than what happened after the horrific incident at Sandy Hook.

On our Facebook page we posted a few items about the hypocrisy surrounding the government and corporate media in regards to policy. Of course, this was met with quite a few comments such as, ” stop pushing your agenda during a tragedy,” “not now, too soon,” and the ever so popular comment, when someone disagrees, “I’m unliking your page.”

So what was ticking off these people who actually came to like things we touch upon everyday? Idiocracy and hypocrisy and more specifically, UAV strikes a.k.a drone strikes that kill children… just not our children.

That’s right killing children and innocent others in Yemen or Pakistan, is ok.  But I don’t think people really feel that way. I think the government and the media feel that way. I think people are a product of what they see and hear. Do you see FOX, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, or ABC showing you the horrific acts of violence to the children of Yemen? Do you see national stage pundits from both elite parties discussing whether or not this is a good foreign policy to carry on?  Hardly if ever.

That’s because Americans (of course, not all) or the general public only talk about what the media and politicians wish you to know about.

If the corporate media and political elites think you should take your flu shots, well most of you do. Even if the CDC says its effective rate isn’t all that impressive. If the corporate media tells you to spend, spend, spend, and look it here at all of these deals we are getting reports on, you probably go out and spend. If the media tells you Iran is even closer than ever at launching their nuclear program, you just bought yourself a new fear and perceived enemy. Finally, if the media tells you that gun control is crucial, needs to be done, needs support, well you get behind that and support it, don’t you?

The passion the general public shares on gun control was thoughtfully executed  out by the mainstream and political elites. 

The latest survey from PEW Research Center shows that 55% of Americans favor a ban on assault - style weapons.


We all agree shooting up schools is terrible. You won’t read or hear anybody on this page contesting that. So why does the general public think we should surrender our 2nd amendment rights because of the violence a few nut jobs created, but when it comes to drones and torture… well that’s okay?

In 2009, the American public didn’t find it necessary for Congress to investigate torture tactics carried on by the Bush administration. According to CBS,  the poll said 62% of people could give two turds about the treatment of not convicted detainees but suspected detainees. Is this the same public that went balls to the wall with their demands on gun control to Congress? Are we starting to think that certain violence is okay? Doesn’t sound civilized to me.

Again in 2009, an Associated-Press survey found that just over half of Americans felt that torture was okay and at times necessary. Could this be because they are told so? Do you really think people (sane, rational) think it’s okay to torture? “Well Derek, that was three or four years ago, surely things have changed.”

“No ,you idiot they haven’t .”  Take two more pieces of evidence to show you I’m not wrong. The liberal paper, Huffington Post, conducted a poll that showed 47% Americans think torture is always justified to 41% who thought it is rarely justifiable. Even if the government hasn’t publicly justified to us who we are torturing and why. That’s because they sold you on terrorism. Which is also a huge money-making and global strategical scheme.  Lastly on torture, consider the recent success of the pro-torture film, Zero Dark Thirty. According to box office reports, the movie is a top spotter and has made an estimated $24 million dollars.


Some people will argue that UAV’s or as we simple folks call them, drones, are better for our military. I don’t disagree. Nobody gets hurt, on our side. Yet, we never consider other grey areas when it comes to the use of U.S drones against countries such as Yemen and Pakistan. Who are they targeting and why? What is the end result of these strikes? How much they cost?  How long do we need to use them?

Now if people on network pages like Facebook, asked photos to go viral of Pakistani children covered in blood because of a suspected terrorist was in the region they would probably be disturbed. However, and unfortunately, that doesn’t quite catch the eye to the general American public.  More importantly, an intelligence report based on suspicion killed a child. Yet where’s the media or public uproar? Obama keeps surrounding himself with kids and making cute statements, ‘that not another kid will be killed because of senseless violence,’  and that’s because the media gives him that venue.

Politico, another cute lefty page, released a poll that showed Americans support the use of drones. I don’t think that’s true. I think Americans support what the news anchor tells them when they report fabricated news. “Today a drone strike wiped out six terrorist suspects.” Of course, they didn’t mention the civilians and even worse they are only suspects.

Getting back to that Politico poll released last year, over 80% of Americans agree with Obama’s use of unmanned aerial vehicles against suspected terrorists and two-thirds agree that it is okay to use them on American citizens abroad.

That’s an astounding number if you believe in polls. However, the media only shows you the suspects, with a patriotic American flag in the backdrop, and pretty much makes up your mind for you that this was ok. It took out suspected terrorists. No big deal. Yeah who cares about the people who had nothing to do with any of this?

I think it looks sexier and better for the Obama administration when CNN issues a headline that reads “Civilian causalities plummet in drone strikes,” as opposed to ” over 160 children dead due to drone strikes.” You know because a child is so precious that we should just not report about it but only when it comes down to pushing forward an agenda. 

This is absurd. And what’s more absurd is if these polls are correct (I think they are), then we have become an idiocracy and hypocrisy. Not only have we become barbaric but we have fallen under the same spell that most do when an empire takes control of their people. 

Hypocrisy and Idiocracy, how much longer will it rule our country into the ground?

               Written By: Derek Wood


Report: Rand Paul to introduce bill nullifying Obama’s executive orders on guns

(HotAir) -Via the Daily Caller, a teaser for his appearance on “Hannity” later tonight. If I didn’t know better, I’d say that a guy who just visited Israel and is now talking about blocking executive overreach on gun-grabbing just might be running for president in 2016.

The bill will go nowhere but conservatives will appreciate the gesture:

“I’m told Sen. Rand Paul will introduce language within hours, within hours, to call for the nullification and prohibition of funding for the president’s executive actions announced today and possibly even using the federal courts to nullify and defund some of the things that he plans on doing,” [Fox News host Eric] Bolling said.

[A] Capitol Hill source told TheDC that Paul’s legislation is expected to do three things: nullify Obama’s executive orders, defund them and ask the Senate to file a court challenge to them.

At the very least, if he can figure out a way to bring this to the floor, it’ll be fun to see how Democrats whose seats are up next year will vote on it. Word on the Hill is that Reid might not even force a vote on the assault-weapons ban lest it prove too difficult for red-state Dems’ reelection campaigns. (According to a CNN poll released today, the recent surge of support for gun control is already starting to fade.) Will Mark Begich? Mary Landrieu? Heidi Heitkamp? Watch the video of her below from a local newscast yesterday (via the Washington Free Beacon) not only sounding sour on Obama’s gun recommendations but going so far as to accuse the White House of having an agenda unrelated to school shootings. Which, of course, is true.

Exit question: How many doctors are really going to follow the White House’s recommendations to talk to their patients about gun safety? I know they do get intrusive on occasion, and it’s a legit topic in the case of a patient who seems genuinely mental, but doctors must realize what a hot button this subject is for many people. Why risk alienating a patient and having him take his business elsewhere by trying to have “the talk” with him about guns? How many doctors know enough about guns themselves to even have that talk? This seems like a golden example of the White House floating an idea that sounds conscientious — it isn’t, it’s just the AMA’s attempt to leach some extra federal money — but which will be roundly ignored. The nicest thing that can be said for it is that it’s not remotely the most laughworthy recommendation offered by Obama this morning.

Kucinich joins Fox News Channel

(TheHill) -Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) is joining Fox News Channel as a regular contributor, the network announced Wednesday.


Kucinich, the liberal firebrand and former two-time presidential candidate, will make his first appearance on the channel on Thursday night during “The O’Reilly Factor,” according to The Associated Press.

“Through 16 years in Congress and two presidential campaigns, Fox News has always provided me with an opportunity to share my perspective with its enormous viewership,” Kucinich said in a statement. “I look forward to a continuation of our relationship, this time as a Fox News contributor.”

Fox News CEO Roger Ailes praised Kucinich in a statement, saying he’s always been impressed with the former congressman’s “fearlessness and thoughtfulness about important issues. His willingness to take a stand from his point of view makes him a valuable voice in our country’s debate.”

Former Obama Staff Complain Of Cold Inaugural Shoulder

 WASHINGTON — In a sour footnote to President Barack Obama’s sweeping electoral victory last November, many of his campaign staffers have been shut out of the inaugural festivities, more than a dozen of them complained to BuzzFeed Monday.

“We worked our butts off, and I’m going to watch it on TV instead of being there,” said one former staffer. “It’s a huge bummer.”

Former staffers — who spoke to BuzzFeed on the condition of anonymity to preserve their relationships, and possible jobs, in Obama’s second term — say they have grown frustrated by what they see as inadequate communication from the Presidential Inaugural Committee, the group responsible for the inaugural balls, and in particular by its restrictions on access to the official events.

“I didn’t hear anything from PIC until a little more than a week ago,” said another staffer. “They knew this was happening. Instead of giving us details [of what we could attend] on November 7th, we found out so late that it would cost me $2,000 to go to Washington for a weekend as opposed to $1,000 or less if I booked two months ago.”

More than 35,000 attendees are expected at Obama’s consolidated formal Inaugural Ball Monday night, which replaces nearly a dozen separate balls. Many staffers complain that after the hard work of getting Obama re-elected they still couldn’t snag tickets to the event — only a small number were made available to staffers. PIC outsourced the ticketing to Ticketmaster, whose system bungled the public distribution earlier this month.

Even the $10 entrance fee for the official staff inaugural ball on Tuesday has drawn criticism. Staffers haven’t been told whether the president will attend the smaller gathering.

“That’s so small it can’t possibly cover the event, so why even make us pay?” asked a third former staffer. “Or worse, that is the entire cost per person which means the event will be really bare bones. The people that worked so hard, for so long, to raise a billion dollars and turn out millions of voters deserve better.”

Claims that they were snubbed have consumed the conversation on the Obama campaign alumni LinkedIn group, said the first staffer.

Obama staffers were paid substantially less than Romney staffers in similar jobs in 2012, and many took pay cuts of $30,000-range from prior jobs, former staffers say. The final payday for staffers was the Friday after the election, as opposed to weeks later for the Republican campaign; health insurance was cut off in November as well.

Many remain unemployed.

A spokesperson for the inaugural committee — who would also only speak on the condition of anonymity — said the campaign is taking steps to take care of former staffers, including an “alumni week for staff and top volunteers that didn’t exist after 2008 to help them navigate the jobs process and make sure they were fully included in the inaugural events.”

This week former Obama staffers will be able to participate in a jobs fair with “actual employers” the spokeperson said, with those employers including the administration. Obama alumni also have the opportunity to take a tour of the White House and participate in a policy briefing.

Another spokesperson said staffers were also asked to pay for the inaugural balls in 2009.

But the sense of neglect is deep among many who worked their hearts out for the president’s re-election campaign.

“They only told us who was the point-person for administration jobs last week,” complained a fourth former staffer. Another said the White House tours were only being offered on the Wednesday before and after the Inauguration — long before many staffers are planning to arrive in Washington or after they depart.

“It’s pretty clear that the PIC staff have no idea that anyone involved lives outside of DC,” said a fifth staffer — a sentiment expressed by several.

Many staffers have also complained that tickets to the swearing-in must be collected by Saturday — a point not communicated until late in the process when many had already booked travel to arrive Sunday.

“After my hard work I’m unemployed, and that’s okay,” said yet another staffer. “I’m still flying to Washington because I want to see this through, but now I won’t be able to see the swearing-in.”

In 2009, the committee raised $54.3 million, according to FEC records. The goal for 2013, according to people close to the committee is $50 million, and Obama has relaxed self-imposed ethics rules capping private donations and barring corporate funds.

“There’s been a lot of speculation about what OFA will become during the second term,” said the third staffer. “If its being run in the same fashion as the PIC, that will be a real waste of the potential the President’s supporters represent.”

“It’s sad that I put in my blood sweat and tears, and now I can’t be a part of this,” said West Coast-based former staffer. “It feels like staff is an afterthought and that’s not what it was like during my 14 months on the campaign.”

Of course, the campaign had other satisfactions.

“All I can do is remember my hug from POTUS the day after the election,” the West Coast staffer said.

List of stuff you can’t have at the 57th Inauguration

The 57th Presidential Inaugural

57th Presidential Inaugural

The United States Secret Service in cooperation with its local, state and federal security, public safety and military partners, has developed an overall security plan for the 57th Presidential Inaugural. Inaugural activities will take place beginning on Sunday, January 20 through Monday, January 21, 2013, with the Inaugural ceremonies scheduled for Monday, January 21.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has designated the Inaugural as a National Special Security Event (NSSE). When an event is designated an NSSE, the Secret Service assumes its role as the lead federal agency for the design and implementation of the operational security plan. The Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), the U.S. Capitol Police and the U.S. Park Police as well as a number of other local, state and federal agencies, will play a critical operational role in securing the Inauguration and resources will be deployed to maintain the appropriate level of security.

The following security measures will be in place for the 57th Presidential Inaugural:

  • Downtown Area Road Closures: Vehicle restricted zones will be in effect beginning at 7 a.m. on Sunday, January 20, through 7 a.m. on Tuesday, January 22. Restrictions will be implemented on a rolling schedule, beginning at Pennsylvania Avenue NW from 2nd Street NW to 15th Street NW. All closures will be in place by the morning of Monday, January 21. All vehicular road closures in Washington, D.C., will be instituted by MPD. Inquiries pertaining to road closures should be directed to the MPD Office of Public Information at (202) 727-4383. Details will also be available online at and at
  • Security Screenings: All attendees, including general public and ticketed guests, are subject to a thorough security screening before entering the Inaugural parade route, the White House reviewing stand and the Inaugural balls. Please allow for additional time for this security screening, as it is expected that lines may be long.
  • Prohibited Items: As a security precaution, the following items will be prohibited from the Inaugural parade route, the White House reviewing stand and the Inaugural balls:
    • Aerosols
    • Ammunition
    • Animals other than helper/guide dogs
    • Backpacks
    • Bags and signs exceeding size restrictions (8″x6″x4″)
    • Bicycles
    • Balloons
    • Coolers
    • Explosives
    • Firearms
    • Glass or thermal containers
    • Laser pointers
    • Mace / Pepper spray
    • Packages
    • Structures
    • Supports for signs and placards
    • Weapons of any kind
    • Any other items determined to be potential safety hazards

    Signs and placards must be made only of cardboard, poster board or cloth and have dimensions no greater than three feet in width, 20 feet in length and one-quarter inch in thickness. Surrendered items will not be returned, nor available for pick-up.

The following public entry points will open at 6:30 a.m. on Monday, January 21, 2013, and will remain open until the parade route can no longer accommodate additional people.

  • - 2nd Street NW and C Street NW
  • - John Marshall Park at C Street NW
  • - Indiana Avenue NW between 6th St NW and 7th St NW
  • - 7th Street NW and D Street NW
  • - 10th Street NW and E Street NW
  • - 12th Street NW and E Street NW
  • - E Street NW just east of 13th Street NW
  • - 13th Street NW and E Street NW
  • - 14th Street NW and E Street NW
  • - 12th Street NW and Constitution Avenue NW
  • - 10th Street NW and Constitution Avenue NW
  • - 7th Street NW and Constitution Avenue NW
  • - Constitution Avenue between 6th Street NW and 7th Street NW

All parade route security screening entry points will be able to accommodate persons with disabilities. There are additional screening entry points for the ticketed seating at the U.S. Capitol and the White House viewing areas. Details for the swearing-in at the Capitol are available at

  • Prohibited Items at the U.S. Capitol: The following items will be prohibited from the ticketed viewing areas at the U.S. Capitol grounds:
    • Aerosol sprays
    • Air horns
    • Alcoholic beverages
    • Animals (other than service animals)
    • Backpacks
    • Coolers
    • Duffel bags
    • Explosives of any kind (including fireworks)
    • Firearms and ammunition (either real or simulated)
    • Glass containers
    • Knives, blades, or sharp objects (of any length)
    • Large bags
    • Laser pointers
    • Mace and/or pepper spray
    • Packages
    • Pocket or hand tools, such as “Leatherman” tools
    • Portable chairs (other than those for disabled persons)
    • Posters
    • Signs
    • Sticks or poles
    • Strollers
    • Suitcases
    • Thermoses
    • Umbrellas
    • Other items that may pose a threat to the security of the event as determined by and at the discretion of the security screener
  • Cold Weather Preparedness: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reminds attendees to plan ahead to prevent cold-weather related health problems. Infants and the elderly are particularly at risk, but anyone can be affected. Attendees of all ages will likely need hats, water-resistant coats, scarves or knit masks to cover the face and mouth, and gloves or mittens. Mittens are warmer than gloves. Wool, silk or polypropylene inner layers of clothing will hold in more body heat than cotton. Perspiration can increase heat loss, and wet clothing can chill the body rapidly. To prevent cold-related health problems, dress in layers of loose-fitting clothes, including extra socks, which can be removed as they become damp. For more information on cold weather and avoiding hypothermia and frostbite, visit
  • Air Security: A combined air security plan will be implemented to provide airspace security for the Washington metropolitan area. Enhanced airspace restrictions on general aviation have been released and can be accessed online at the Federal Aviation Administration web page: Pilot inquiries should be directed to 866-598-9522.
  • Water Security: There will be an enhanced security presence on the waterways around Washington, D.C. Inquires should be directed to the U.S. Coast Guard via marine band radio VHF channel 16 or the Metropolitan Police Department Harbor Patrol at 202-727-4582.

    Additional Information

    Additional information for charter operators, as well as residents of the District, Virginia and Maryland, is available online through the following websites:

    In addition, Inaugural information is available on the following sites to help those planning to attend the inaugural events:

    Information will be available prior to and during Inauguration day on social media sites such as Twitter. To see Inauguration related material, please use #inaug2013. Some of the Twitter sites being used to communicate information from the Inaugural public safety and security partners include:

    • District Department of Transportation - @ddotdc
    • Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies - @jccic2013
    • Joint Task Force-National Capital Region - @JTFNCR
    • National Terrorism Advisory System - @NTASAlerts
    • Office of the D.C. Mayor - @MayorVinceGray
    • Secret Service - @SecretService
    • U.S. Department of Homeland Security - @DHSgov
    • WMATA - @metroinaug

    Emergency alerts and public notifications regarding the Inauguration will be available via text messaging. To receive these messages, text the word “INAUGURATION” to 888777. Text messaging fees may apply according to your cellular plan.

Obama approval rating at three-year high -Gallup

(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

(Examiner) -President Obama is heading into his second Inauguration buoyed by his highest approval ratings in three years, though still far from his January 2009 high when Democrats were predicting they were on the verge of eliminating the GOP.

Gallup has Obama at 52 percent approval, a level he hasn’t seen since the beginning of 2010 and John Zogby puts the president at 56 percent approval, his best since October 2009. When he was first inaugurated, he had a 68 percent Gallup approval rating.

The Zogby Analytics poll of 826 likely voters found Obama receiving majority approval ratings from most groups: me, 52 percent; women, 59 percent; Democrats, 91 percent; independents, 55 percent; 18-29 year olds, 68 percent; 30-49 year olds, 60 percent; 50-64 year olds, 53 percent; Hispanics, 65 percent; African Americans, 95 percent.

Moving beyond his base, Zogby told Secrets that president gets a surprising 40 percent approval among evangelical voters, 25 percent among conservatives, and 16 percent among Republicans.

With his positive numbers above 50 percent, it’s probably no wonder, said Zogby, that a majority, 53 percent, are optimistic about the future of the country during Obama’s second term or that 49 percent want the GOP to “put partisan politics aside and support the agenda of President Obama and the congressional Democrats.”

White House Raises Petition Threshold From 25K To 100K Signatures

(Activist Post) The White House is making it more difficult for groups of citizens to petition the government.

Yesterday, they announced that they’re raising the signature threshold for responding to petitions from 25,000 to over 100,000 signatures within 30 days.

Apparently, too many complaints (petitions) are reaching the previous threshold too quickly for them to respond adequately.

The White House writes:

As we’ve seen overall use skyrocket, more petitions are crossing the threshold — and doing so much more quickly.

In the first 10 months of 2012, it took an average of 18 days for a new petition to cross the 25,000-signature threshold. In the last two months of the year, that average time was cut in half to just 9 days, and most petitions that crossed the threshold collected 25,000 signatures within five days of their creation. More than 60 percent of the petitions to cross threshold in all of 2012 did so in the last two months of the year.

The White House called the increase in participation a “good problem” to have.

Turns out that ‘good problem’ is only getting better, so we’re making another adjustment to ensure we’re able to continue to give the most popular ideas the time they deserve.

The White House included a nifty infographic to illustrate the announcement: