Nov. 24, 2012
Breitbart.com
Saturday, November 24, 2012
New federal law may make replacing your furnace much costlier
Nov. 24, 2012
Northjersey.com
Replacing an aging furnace could cost homeowners thousands of dollars more after May 1, when new federal energy efficiency standards take effect for northern states, including New Jersey.
The new energy-efficient natural gas furnaces aren’t that much more expensive themselves, but they must be vented directly to an outside wall rather than through the chimney, which can increase installation costs dramatically, home heating contractors say.
The new rules will not affect homeowners with gas-burning boilers that heat water for radiator systems. But the bulk of homeowners in North Jersey will be affected, since up to 80 percent of homes in the region are heated with forced hot air systems that use gas-fired furnaces, said Milton Baum, general manager of Keil Heating and Cooling of Riverdale.
Home-heating contractors suggest that homeowners contemplating a furnace replacement in the next few years might want to have a contractor visit their home this winter to assess whether installation of a high-efficiency furnace would be straightforward or complicated, based on the home’s layout.
“The average furnace lasts about 20 years, so if yours is 10 years old or less, this is not an issue for you,” Baum said.
Under the Department of Energy rules, gas furnaces installed after May 1 must be at least 90 percent efficient, compared with the current 78 percent efficient criterion.
Similar improvements in energy efficiency are set to go into effect for heat pumps and air conditioning systems in Southern states.
The rules were produced after Congress passed a law in 2007 allowing the Department of Energy to develop regional standards for central heating and cooling equipment.
Analysis by the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that between 2013 and 2045, the higher-efficiency furnaces, air conditioning systems and heat pumps would save about one-fifth of the amount of total energy used annually by the U.S. residential sector.
In addition, the drop in energy use would result in greenhouse gas reductions of up to 143 million metric tons of carbon dioxide over those three decades. That’s equivalent to the amount of carbon emitted each year to produce the electricity used by 1.8 million homes, or the carbon emissions produced from burning nearly 77,900 railcars worth of coal, according to an Environmental Protection Agency greenhouse gas calculator.
But not everyone thinks the newer furnaces will reduce energy consumption by quite as much as the Energy Department predicts. “I’d say 99 percent of homes do not have properly designed ductwork,” which compromises the stated efficiency level of any furnace, Baum said.
A basic, standard-sized gas furnace with an 80 percent efficiency rating costs about $3,500, Baum said, while the equivalent 92-percent-efficient model is about $300 more. That includes a full installation if there are no complications.
Through its WARMAdvantage Program, the state Board of Public Utilities provides rebates of $400 to customers of PSE&G and New Jersey Natural Gas who purchase gas furnaces with an efficiency rating of 95 percent or higher.
Based on a savings calculator, Fertel said that a new higher efficient 80,000 BTU furnace — the size to heat a standard home — would save a homeowner about $300 a year by using less natural gas than an older model.
But all those savings can easily go out the window for homes where the installation process is more complicated.
“Here’s where the issue lies — if your old furnace is in the center of a finished basement,” said Richard Fertel, president and owner of Bornstein Sons Inc., a home heating contractor that serves Bergen and Passaic.
The newer model furnaces are often taller than the older ones, so the height is another consideration when figuring out where to put it.
“So many houses built in the 1940s and 1950s were not built to accommodate this sort of thing,” Baum said.
The new furnaces need two pipes — one that takes fresh air into the furnace so combustion can occur, and one that vents combustible gases outside the house. Generally, that venting pipe must extend through an outside wall of the home, which requires construction work. Most older furnaces vent through the chimney, but that doesn’t work for most higher efficiency furnaces. The old-model furnaces produced smoke warm enough to float up a chimney, Fertel said, but the higher efficient models produce cooler smoke, which needs to be forced out.
In addition, because the venting pipe needs to be at a certain angle to allow proper venting, relocation of the furnace might be necessary. That would require moving the gas line and changing the electrical wiring, adding more expense. The new piping could also be unsightly if the furnace is in the center of the basement.
“It’s going to look poorly, and you will want to box it and the carpentry work will raise the installation costs,” Fertel said.
There’s still another concern — and another possible cost — if a home has a standard 40- or 50-gallon gas water heater. Those heaters are generally vented through the chimney along with the older furnaces. But after removing the old furnace venting pipe, there is not enough heat generated in the chimney by the water heater venting pipe alone to prevent condensation from occurring. And that condensation will include sulfuric acid, which can eat away at a chimney’s mortar joints. Re-venting the water heater could increase the total cost of the new furnace project by $3,000 to $4,000, Baum said.
Those who own condominiums might bump up against an added headache — their condominium bylaws, which often prohibit modifying or punching through any exterior wall, Baum said. “Because of this, condo groups are scrambling right now to change their bylaws,” he said.
Northjersey.com
Replacing an aging furnace could cost homeowners thousands of dollars more after May 1, when new federal energy efficiency standards take effect for northern states, including New Jersey.
The new energy-efficient natural gas furnaces aren’t that much more expensive themselves, but they must be vented directly to an outside wall rather than through the chimney, which can increase installation costs dramatically, home heating contractors say.
The new rules will not affect homeowners with gas-burning boilers that heat water for radiator systems. But the bulk of homeowners in North Jersey will be affected, since up to 80 percent of homes in the region are heated with forced hot air systems that use gas-fired furnaces, said Milton Baum, general manager of Keil Heating and Cooling of Riverdale.
Home-heating contractors suggest that homeowners contemplating a furnace replacement in the next few years might want to have a contractor visit their home this winter to assess whether installation of a high-efficiency furnace would be straightforward or complicated, based on the home’s layout.
“The average furnace lasts about 20 years, so if yours is 10 years old or less, this is not an issue for you,” Baum said.
Under the Department of Energy rules, gas furnaces installed after May 1 must be at least 90 percent efficient, compared with the current 78 percent efficient criterion.
Similar improvements in energy efficiency are set to go into effect for heat pumps and air conditioning systems in Southern states.
The rules were produced after Congress passed a law in 2007 allowing the Department of Energy to develop regional standards for central heating and cooling equipment.
Analysis by the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that between 2013 and 2045, the higher-efficiency furnaces, air conditioning systems and heat pumps would save about one-fifth of the amount of total energy used annually by the U.S. residential sector.
In addition, the drop in energy use would result in greenhouse gas reductions of up to 143 million metric tons of carbon dioxide over those three decades. That’s equivalent to the amount of carbon emitted each year to produce the electricity used by 1.8 million homes, or the carbon emissions produced from burning nearly 77,900 railcars worth of coal, according to an Environmental Protection Agency greenhouse gas calculator.
But not everyone thinks the newer furnaces will reduce energy consumption by quite as much as the Energy Department predicts. “I’d say 99 percent of homes do not have properly designed ductwork,” which compromises the stated efficiency level of any furnace, Baum said.
A basic, standard-sized gas furnace with an 80 percent efficiency rating costs about $3,500, Baum said, while the equivalent 92-percent-efficient model is about $300 more. That includes a full installation if there are no complications.
Through its WARMAdvantage Program, the state Board of Public Utilities provides rebates of $400 to customers of PSE&G and New Jersey Natural Gas who purchase gas furnaces with an efficiency rating of 95 percent or higher.
Based on a savings calculator, Fertel said that a new higher efficient 80,000 BTU furnace — the size to heat a standard home — would save a homeowner about $300 a year by using less natural gas than an older model.
But all those savings can easily go out the window for homes where the installation process is more complicated.
“Here’s where the issue lies — if your old furnace is in the center of a finished basement,” said Richard Fertel, president and owner of Bornstein Sons Inc., a home heating contractor that serves Bergen and Passaic.
The newer model furnaces are often taller than the older ones, so the height is another consideration when figuring out where to put it.
“So many houses built in the 1940s and 1950s were not built to accommodate this sort of thing,” Baum said.
The new furnaces need two pipes — one that takes fresh air into the furnace so combustion can occur, and one that vents combustible gases outside the house. Generally, that venting pipe must extend through an outside wall of the home, which requires construction work. Most older furnaces vent through the chimney, but that doesn’t work for most higher efficiency furnaces. The old-model furnaces produced smoke warm enough to float up a chimney, Fertel said, but the higher efficient models produce cooler smoke, which needs to be forced out.
In addition, because the venting pipe needs to be at a certain angle to allow proper venting, relocation of the furnace might be necessary. That would require moving the gas line and changing the electrical wiring, adding more expense. The new piping could also be unsightly if the furnace is in the center of the basement.
“It’s going to look poorly, and you will want to box it and the carpentry work will raise the installation costs,” Fertel said.
There’s still another concern — and another possible cost — if a home has a standard 40- or 50-gallon gas water heater. Those heaters are generally vented through the chimney along with the older furnaces. But after removing the old furnace venting pipe, there is not enough heat generated in the chimney by the water heater venting pipe alone to prevent condensation from occurring. And that condensation will include sulfuric acid, which can eat away at a chimney’s mortar joints. Re-venting the water heater could increase the total cost of the new furnace project by $3,000 to $4,000, Baum said.
Those who own condominiums might bump up against an added headache — their condominium bylaws, which often prohibit modifying or punching through any exterior wall, Baum said. “Because of this, condo groups are scrambling right now to change their bylaws,” he said.
The Care and Breeding of Docile Students
Nov. 24, 2012
by Robert Weissberg
@ Taki Mag
The American people have increasingly become docile and reliant on government largess. I see a parallel between this burgeoning dependency and the breeding of dachshunds.
The dachshund was bred as a killing machine to burrow and eradicate badgers, rabbits and, in the United States, prairie dogs. Its body is muscular with paws adapted to digging, and it has a keen sense of smell. Its large lung capacity allows it to dig underneath its prey to catch it by surprise. Packs of dachshunds were even used to hunt wild boar and wolverines. Thus, in their natural state they are not pets suitable for small children.
But little money is to be made breeding subterranean killing machines no matter how cute or adorable. Professional breeders have therefore wisely bred out the dachshund’s hyper-aggressive traits to arrive at an animal that more closely resembles a submissive toy poodle. It does not take much. Just cull out the snarly ones and voilà—you have a cute, tame wiener dog.
We don’t yet breed people into lapdogs, but the contemporary university is doing all it can to accomplish such a goal—creating a citizenry that instinctively looks to the federal government for its protection and sustenance. What is perhaps most remarkable about manufacturing this “new person” is that it seems normal to the point of not even being noticed. Today’s college students are now liberated from nearly every responsibility that once constituted growing up. It is no wonder that among today’s college graduates, adolescent behavior persists well into the 30s.
A few obvious campus examples must suffice. Want friends who share common interests? In the pre-modern universities students themselves shouldered this responsibility. Nowadays the Dean of Students heads up a vast bureaucracy that facilitates dozens of university-funded, university-supervised affinity groups, everything from a safe house for lesbians of color to supplying basement rooms for chess aficionados.
What is notable here is how “forming an affinity group” has become “getting the university to support the group,” as if seeking friends outside university control was physically and financially impossible. Civil-rights groups have evolved into organizations where the key question is not how best to solve a problem but rather, “How can we get government funds to tackle a problem?”
This slow slide into almost unconscious dependence was made clear to me via an exchange of views with a student who complained that his university imposed secular values on his school-funded religious group. I advised him to sever all ties to the university—raise funds privately, rent a meeting space at the Holiday Inn, and drop the university’s name or logo. My advice barely registered. His rejoinder assumed that independence was not feasible even though the costs might only be a few hundred dollars a year for everything—a pittance for religious freedom.
Consider recreation, hardly a commodity that only a university can supply. Surely there are local gyms, bowling allies, pool halls, and YMCAs happy to have student business. In contemporary schools, however, this responsibility is now part of “Student Affairs.” The same pattern holds for entertainment and spectator sports. Again, no need to make budgeting choices let alone “pay,” since everything is “free.” Even dining services have been upgraded to discourage students from finding, let alone cooking, their own meals. (This continues the policy of “free” government-subsidized lunches and breakfasts that begins in grade school.) The university’s “free” healthcare service not only dispenses condoms gratis, it supplies “free counseling” for the gender-confused.
These examples of domestication could be multiplied, but three points are clear. First, this campus socialism needlessly drives up tuition and encourages further reliance on government to foot the bill. I suspect that if all these “free” nonacademic extras were removed, tuition costs would drop by a third and thereby reduce student debt. Without this debt, there would be less money owed to Uncle Sam. Moreover, sky-high tuition now makes it almost impossible to work one’s way through school. Try finding a part-time job that pays $20,000 or more a year. Far more tempting is to sink a bit further into government-supplied debt.
Second, these abundant university-supplied services multiply the opportunities to fill young minds with the latest PC nonsense. University divisions of housing are among the most PC entities on campus. College dormitories offer excellent opportunities to spread the PC gospel via dorm policies (what you can post on room walls), resident advisor-led meetings (the importance of sympathizing with your transvestite roommate), and handling “offensive” behavior (calling a rowdy a “water buffalo”). Why else would today’s universities demonize fraternities? I suspect that Deans of Student Housing are terrified that if students were allowed to live without university supervision, they could actually choose their own housemates, tell racist jokes, get drunk, and put up Ron Paul posters without any fear of punishment.
But of all the dependency-generating mechanisms, the most important is inhibiting youngsters’ ability to make real-world decisions like adults. Imagine if today’s university sold off all of its nonacademic functions. Goodbye dorms, health centers, divisions of recreation, free computer services, the campus bookstore, tutoring and writing centers, free concerts, free lecture series, and all else. Even sell the library to Google. This would be a bare-bones medieval-style university, one consisting solely of professors, classrooms, science labs, and whatever else was necessary for imparting knowledge.
Would campus life collapse? Would eighteen-year-olds starve absent a dining service? Hardly, and these youngsters would benefit immensely. Nearly all college students have mastered craigslist and other online venues to find whatever they need. Let youngsters learn to make important choices and then suffer the consequences. Let them visit Walmart’s convenient care for their runny nose rather than the university’s facilities and thereby learn about choosing a healthcare provider. Let them shop the housing market and survive all the charlatans and crooks. This is what “growing up” means.
Like aggressive dogs that are kept from breeding, students who demonstrate excessive independence are culled out from university life as troublemakers. Imagine the fate of students who openly contested today’s campus orthodoxy by mocking diversity or pointing out that Africa devolved after colonialism ended. Like any good breeder with an eye on potential customers, university administrators would keep this troublemaker student from reaching the market. This is what speech codes and all the rest of the PC apparatus are about—imposing docility by expelling troublemakers. After a point, the word would get out that if you want to be adopted by a nice family, then don’t bite strangers.
I can imagine the school president giving the following graduation speech:
Here, ladies and gentlemen, is the class of 2015. All have had their shots, been wormed, and are paper-trained and ready to go. Each, I assure you, will make a wonderful addition to our fine society.
by Robert Weissberg
@ Taki Mag
The dachshund was bred as a killing machine to burrow and eradicate badgers, rabbits and, in the United States, prairie dogs. Its body is muscular with paws adapted to digging, and it has a keen sense of smell. Its large lung capacity allows it to dig underneath its prey to catch it by surprise. Packs of dachshunds were even used to hunt wild boar and wolverines. Thus, in their natural state they are not pets suitable for small children.
But little money is to be made breeding subterranean killing machines no matter how cute or adorable. Professional breeders have therefore wisely bred out the dachshund’s hyper-aggressive traits to arrive at an animal that more closely resembles a submissive toy poodle. It does not take much. Just cull out the snarly ones and voilà—you have a cute, tame wiener dog.
We don’t yet breed people into lapdogs, but the contemporary university is doing all it can to accomplish such a goal—creating a citizenry that instinctively looks to the federal government for its protection and sustenance. What is perhaps most remarkable about manufacturing this “new person” is that it seems normal to the point of not even being noticed. Today’s college students are now liberated from nearly every responsibility that once constituted growing up. It is no wonder that among today’s college graduates, adolescent behavior persists well into the 30s.
A few obvious campus examples must suffice. Want friends who share common interests? In the pre-modern universities students themselves shouldered this responsibility. Nowadays the Dean of Students heads up a vast bureaucracy that facilitates dozens of university-funded, university-supervised affinity groups, everything from a safe house for lesbians of color to supplying basement rooms for chess aficionados.
What is notable here is how “forming an affinity group” has become “getting the university to support the group,” as if seeking friends outside university control was physically and financially impossible. Civil-rights groups have evolved into organizations where the key question is not how best to solve a problem but rather, “How can we get government funds to tackle a problem?”
This slow slide into almost unconscious dependence was made clear to me via an exchange of views with a student who complained that his university imposed secular values on his school-funded religious group. I advised him to sever all ties to the university—raise funds privately, rent a meeting space at the Holiday Inn, and drop the university’s name or logo. My advice barely registered. His rejoinder assumed that independence was not feasible even though the costs might only be a few hundred dollars a year for everything—a pittance for religious freedom.
Consider recreation, hardly a commodity that only a university can supply. Surely there are local gyms, bowling allies, pool halls, and YMCAs happy to have student business. In contemporary schools, however, this responsibility is now part of “Student Affairs.” The same pattern holds for entertainment and spectator sports. Again, no need to make budgeting choices let alone “pay,” since everything is “free.” Even dining services have been upgraded to discourage students from finding, let alone cooking, their own meals. (This continues the policy of “free” government-subsidized lunches and breakfasts that begins in grade school.) The university’s “free” healthcare service not only dispenses condoms gratis, it supplies “free counseling” for the gender-confused.
These examples of domestication could be multiplied, but three points are clear. First, this campus socialism needlessly drives up tuition and encourages further reliance on government to foot the bill. I suspect that if all these “free” nonacademic extras were removed, tuition costs would drop by a third and thereby reduce student debt. Without this debt, there would be less money owed to Uncle Sam. Moreover, sky-high tuition now makes it almost impossible to work one’s way through school. Try finding a part-time job that pays $20,000 or more a year. Far more tempting is to sink a bit further into government-supplied debt.
Second, these abundant university-supplied services multiply the opportunities to fill young minds with the latest PC nonsense. University divisions of housing are among the most PC entities on campus. College dormitories offer excellent opportunities to spread the PC gospel via dorm policies (what you can post on room walls), resident advisor-led meetings (the importance of sympathizing with your transvestite roommate), and handling “offensive” behavior (calling a rowdy a “water buffalo”). Why else would today’s universities demonize fraternities? I suspect that Deans of Student Housing are terrified that if students were allowed to live without university supervision, they could actually choose their own housemates, tell racist jokes, get drunk, and put up Ron Paul posters without any fear of punishment.
But of all the dependency-generating mechanisms, the most important is inhibiting youngsters’ ability to make real-world decisions like adults. Imagine if today’s university sold off all of its nonacademic functions. Goodbye dorms, health centers, divisions of recreation, free computer services, the campus bookstore, tutoring and writing centers, free concerts, free lecture series, and all else. Even sell the library to Google. This would be a bare-bones medieval-style university, one consisting solely of professors, classrooms, science labs, and whatever else was necessary for imparting knowledge.
Would campus life collapse? Would eighteen-year-olds starve absent a dining service? Hardly, and these youngsters would benefit immensely. Nearly all college students have mastered craigslist and other online venues to find whatever they need. Let youngsters learn to make important choices and then suffer the consequences. Let them visit Walmart’s convenient care for their runny nose rather than the university’s facilities and thereby learn about choosing a healthcare provider. Let them shop the housing market and survive all the charlatans and crooks. This is what “growing up” means.
Like aggressive dogs that are kept from breeding, students who demonstrate excessive independence are culled out from university life as troublemakers. Imagine the fate of students who openly contested today’s campus orthodoxy by mocking diversity or pointing out that Africa devolved after colonialism ended. Like any good breeder with an eye on potential customers, university administrators would keep this troublemaker student from reaching the market. This is what speech codes and all the rest of the PC apparatus are about—imposing docility by expelling troublemakers. After a point, the word would get out that if you want to be adopted by a nice family, then don’t bite strangers.
I can imagine the school president giving the following graduation speech:
Here, ladies and gentlemen, is the class of 2015. All have had their shots, been wormed, and are paper-trained and ready to go. Each, I assure you, will make a wonderful addition to our fine society.
What The Media Won’t Tell Us About The Union That Killed Hostess
November 24, 2012
By Dr. Kevin "Coach" Collins
@ Western Journalism
The fake “reporters and journalists” we are forced to put up with have destroyed our sacred freedom of the press. Their lies and half-truths lead trusting readers to only the conclusions they want Americans to reach. The truth about the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers & Grain Millers Union (BCTW&GMU) is a good example of the kind of information the fake media hides from us.
The leadership of the BCTW&GMU is a gang of greedy crooks who are only concerned with filling up the trough they push their snouts into. That trough is constantly refilled with the dues money of workers whose lives mean nothing to these people.
In perfect “Animal Farm” style, the upper leadership of this criminal gang pulls down from two to three times what the average worker they “represent” makes for actually working for a living. For instance, Frank Hurt (a name you couldn’t make up) makes $262,654.00 to “guard the interests” of his members who make about $85,000 a year, which itself is $35,000 more than the average salary for workers across America.
Since 2002, the membership of the BCTW&GMU has fallen by more than 32,000. This is not surprising because while there are no available data after 2009, during the period between 2002 and 2009, an average of more than one workplace a month decertified this monster by direct vote of the workers involved. There you have the reason the unions want “Card Check.”
Anyone familiar with this union would have no trouble spotting the problems that would compel their members to flee at such a rapid pace. In the last ten years, it has racked up 524 unfair labor practice complaints based on its refusal to live up to its “Duty of Fair Representation” (which is pretty much what it did to Hostess and certainly what it did to the members of other unions willing to work for Hostess under its latest offer.)
Given its basic criminal nature, it almost goes without saying that the BCTW&GMU’s recent political contributions have gone 99.73% to Democrats ($1,447,204.00) while it gave Republicans just .0027%, or $4,000.
Isn’t it obvious why we don’t ever hear and/or read figures like these?
By Dr. Kevin "Coach" Collins
@ Western Journalism
The leadership of the BCTW&GMU is a gang of greedy crooks who are only concerned with filling up the trough they push their snouts into. That trough is constantly refilled with the dues money of workers whose lives mean nothing to these people.
In perfect “Animal Farm” style, the upper leadership of this criminal gang pulls down from two to three times what the average worker they “represent” makes for actually working for a living. For instance, Frank Hurt (a name you couldn’t make up) makes $262,654.00 to “guard the interests” of his members who make about $85,000 a year, which itself is $35,000 more than the average salary for workers across America.
Since 2002, the membership of the BCTW&GMU has fallen by more than 32,000. This is not surprising because while there are no available data after 2009, during the period between 2002 and 2009, an average of more than one workplace a month decertified this monster by direct vote of the workers involved. There you have the reason the unions want “Card Check.”
Anyone familiar with this union would have no trouble spotting the problems that would compel their members to flee at such a rapid pace. In the last ten years, it has racked up 524 unfair labor practice complaints based on its refusal to live up to its “Duty of Fair Representation” (which is pretty much what it did to Hostess and certainly what it did to the members of other unions willing to work for Hostess under its latest offer.)
Given its basic criminal nature, it almost goes without saying that the BCTW&GMU’s recent political contributions have gone 99.73% to Democrats ($1,447,204.00) while it gave Republicans just .0027%, or $4,000.
Isn’t it obvious why we don’t ever hear and/or read figures like these?
Obama’s Latest Attempt To Overwhelm The System
November 24, 2012
By Thomas Paine
@ Western Journalism
If you are a business owner, you are well aware that President Obama has imposed over 6,000 new regulations on businesses in just 90 days. This doesn’t even begin to address the massive amount of regulations imposed over the last 4 years. The bigger picture is that it’s all part of his plan to “OVERWHELM” the system.
Karl Marx said that capitalism will eventually fail and that communism is the solution and end game. He says you can wait for that to happen, or you can accelerate the process by overwhelming the system and destroying capitalism. There will be so much chaos that it is easy to take away rights and take control as the government savior.
Once that occurs, you implement communism. This process can only be understood by the “enlightened” government leaders (Obama and the like). The masses are too stupid and ignorant to understand how good communism will be for them, so they need to be forced down that path, by any and all means possible. Lie, deceive, create class and race warfare issues, and use catastrophes (and if there are none, make some up; the ends justify the means.) That is why every time Obama speaks about anything, you will notice that it is always very dramatic (and the world will end if we don’t do it right away.) Examples include Obamacare and his “Jobs bill.”
If the progression is not fast enough, then Karl Marx says you need to kill people to help the greater good achieve “enlightenment”. That is why in Russia, they killed 60 million of their own people, for the greater good. Of course, the greater good is so the top 3% in government leadership can have all power and wealth and remove all means for the masses to ever be able to topple them, including taking all rights, removing all weapons, and eliminating religion.
To deflect those who say that Obama is not a Marxist..
His favorite college professors are Marxists, his favorite books were written by Marxists, his parents and grandparents were Marxists, their friends were Marxists, and his administration is full of Marxists. I know they don’t like that term; it is “progressives” now.
As dumb as he seems, I actually believe he knows what he is doing. The unfortunate part is that we don’t think it could ever happen here, and we don’t know enough about communism to realize what is happening.
Most of us don’t even know much about our own Constitution and the reasoning and brilliance behind its development.
Read the Federalist Papers and other writings from our Founders; they knew we would want to move towards socialism, and so they wrote the Constitution the best they could to prevent that.
Photo credit: Dan Jacobs (Creative Commons)
By Thomas Paine
@ Western Journalism
Karl Marx said that capitalism will eventually fail and that communism is the solution and end game. He says you can wait for that to happen, or you can accelerate the process by overwhelming the system and destroying capitalism. There will be so much chaos that it is easy to take away rights and take control as the government savior.
Once that occurs, you implement communism. This process can only be understood by the “enlightened” government leaders (Obama and the like). The masses are too stupid and ignorant to understand how good communism will be for them, so they need to be forced down that path, by any and all means possible. Lie, deceive, create class and race warfare issues, and use catastrophes (and if there are none, make some up; the ends justify the means.) That is why every time Obama speaks about anything, you will notice that it is always very dramatic (and the world will end if we don’t do it right away.) Examples include Obamacare and his “Jobs bill.”
If the progression is not fast enough, then Karl Marx says you need to kill people to help the greater good achieve “enlightenment”. That is why in Russia, they killed 60 million of their own people, for the greater good. Of course, the greater good is so the top 3% in government leadership can have all power and wealth and remove all means for the masses to ever be able to topple them, including taking all rights, removing all weapons, and eliminating religion.
To deflect those who say that Obama is not a Marxist..
His favorite college professors are Marxists, his favorite books were written by Marxists, his parents and grandparents were Marxists, their friends were Marxists, and his administration is full of Marxists. I know they don’t like that term; it is “progressives” now.
As dumb as he seems, I actually believe he knows what he is doing. The unfortunate part is that we don’t think it could ever happen here, and we don’t know enough about communism to realize what is happening.
Most of us don’t even know much about our own Constitution and the reasoning and brilliance behind its development.
Read the Federalist Papers and other writings from our Founders; they knew we would want to move towards socialism, and so they wrote the Constitution the best they could to prevent that.
Photo credit: Dan Jacobs (Creative Commons)
Video: Obama Commits Treason With The Muslim Brotherhood
November 24, 2012
By Kris Zane
@ Western Journalism
We witnessed another one of Barack Obama’s oddities with the Muslim Brotherhood. The first anomaly was when Obama was almost giddy when the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt, Mohammed Morsi, ascended to power. The Muslim Brotherhood had openly called for the destruction of the United States “from within”, most recently apparent in Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR calling for the purging of any training materials within the FBI and CIA that “offended” Muslims. Barack Obama of course dutifully complied.
The most recent oddity, however, is Obama calling on Morsi to “broker a truce” between Hamas and Israel. Hamas has fired on average one thousand rockets per year at Israel from the Gaza strip; and for eight days, Israel did something that they should have done a decade ago: fight back.
Keep in mind that the Muslim Brotherhood is the parent organization of Hamas. Keep in mind that, like Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood has called for the annihilation of Israel. So for Obama to call on Morsi to “broker a truce” is ridiculous.
The so-called “truce” amounts to Israel ceasing to defend herself and the opening up of the Gaza strip blockade that has kept Iran and other extremists countries (now Egypt) from shipping more powerful weapons to Hamas.
Furthermore, Obama colluding with someone who is part of an organization that has openly called for the destruction of the United States amounts to treason in my book.
By Kris Zane
@ Western Journalism
We witnessed another one of Barack Obama’s oddities with the Muslim Brotherhood. The first anomaly was when Obama was almost giddy when the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt, Mohammed Morsi, ascended to power. The Muslim Brotherhood had openly called for the destruction of the United States “from within”, most recently apparent in Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR calling for the purging of any training materials within the FBI and CIA that “offended” Muslims. Barack Obama of course dutifully complied.
The most recent oddity, however, is Obama calling on Morsi to “broker a truce” between Hamas and Israel. Hamas has fired on average one thousand rockets per year at Israel from the Gaza strip; and for eight days, Israel did something that they should have done a decade ago: fight back.
Keep in mind that the Muslim Brotherhood is the parent organization of Hamas. Keep in mind that, like Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood has called for the annihilation of Israel. So for Obama to call on Morsi to “broker a truce” is ridiculous.
The so-called “truce” amounts to Israel ceasing to defend herself and the opening up of the Gaza strip blockade that has kept Iran and other extremists countries (now Egypt) from shipping more powerful weapons to Hamas.
Furthermore, Obama colluding with someone who is part of an organization that has openly called for the destruction of the United States amounts to treason in my book.
Loudon on Conservatives’ Prospects
November 24, 2012
New Zeal
My friends at I Own the World just posted this interview I did in New York, just before returning to New Zealand.
New Zeal
My friends at I Own the World just posted this interview I did in New York, just before returning to New Zealand.
In 1974, Hollywood Made Movie about How Gov’t Destroyed Black Families, but Viewers Lost the Translation – VIDEO
November 24, 2012
World of NewsNinja2012 Special Report:
Back in 1974, James Earl Jones and Diahnne Carroll starred in a movie about a woman that had a lot of kids and wanted a man in her life but struggled with keeping one because if the government found out that he was giving her money and materialistic items, that would cut into her welfare benefits. This was so true among the black community back then and it helped destroy many families. Watching the movie gave us entertainment and laughter but there was an underlining message that many missed.
Full Story Plus Video>>
World of NewsNinja2012 Special Report:
Full Story Plus Video>>
Susan Rice – Blame or Bias: A Woman’s Perspective
by Evangeline Paine
November 23, 2012
They say if all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking remarkably like a nail. After watching the precious pearl clutching outrage of the left over the objection of the possible appointment of the current UN Ambassador Susan Rice to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State- the immediate cries of racism and sexism were, yes, hammered home. For example, Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., told CNN on Tuesday November 20, 2012 that calling Ambassador Rice “incompetent” was a racial code word, especially well known to people that were raised in the south, and that it was insulting. Born and raised in the south myself, I can’t seem to remember this being an exclusive insult to anyone. Even the incompetent ones, bless their hearts.
On November 19, 2012 Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) sent President Barack Obama a letter, urging him not to nominate Ambassador Rice for the position of Secretary of State, citing-
“Ambassador Rice is widely viewed as having either willfully or incompetently misled the American public in the Benghazi matter. Her actions plausibly give U.S. allies (and rivals) abroad reason to question U.S. commitment and credibility when needed. Thus, we believe that making her the face of U.S. foreign policy in your second term would greatly undermine your desire to improve U.S. relations with the world and continue to build trust with the American people.”
This letter is signed by 97 members of Congress. Inevitable George W. Bush/Harriet Miers comparisons come to mind. But would strong opposition to this appointment have the same result? I know where I’d place my bet. Mr. Bush’s nomination of Ms. Miers was vehemently objected to, and by many strong conservatives due to what was called cronyism (she worked for Bush throughout his tenure as Texas Governor prior to being White House Counsel) and inexperience (wait- what’s that? Elena Kagan? Shhh).
Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) came out with strong words against the possible appointment. Stating to do whatever within their power to block the nomination, Sen. Graham said baldly “I don’t trust her”. Well, on most days that end in y I don’t trust Mr. Grahamnesty, but that blunt bit of honesty was refreshing.
But it seems rather obvious that Mr. Obama does trust Susan Rice. Or at least feels the need to defend her. On his first scheduled press conference in over half a year, he comes out to rescue his beleaguered ambassador. Directly from his press conference-
“If Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. When they go after the U.N. ambassador apparently because they think she’s an easy target, then they’ve got a problem with me.”
Even the President of the United States thinks our UN Ambassador is nothing but a helpless, hapless wench that requires a man to stand up for her. No? Why else the arrogant “go after me” comment? He has no problem with Secretary Clinton handling her battles (and his, for that matter, it’s in the job description…oh wait…) Does he coddle Janet Napolitano? Valerie Jarrett? So why does he think Susan Rice, who needs his protection, should be our representative to world leaders? Was her body of work with the UN so exemplary that it overshadows the fact that she lied, for days, about the cause of the massacre in Benghazi, Libya that took the lives of four Americans?
If you ask Susan Rice, she believes she has-
“We’ve repaired frayed relations with countries around the world. We’ve ended needless American isolation on a wide range of issues. And as a consequence, we’ve gotten strong cooperation on things that matter most to our national security interest.”
When you’ve had China and Russia veto down three of your resolutions? When you’ve skipped several Security Council meetings? Or pulled a no-show for the Council’s Haiti crisis meeting to expand the UN’s presence there to stabilize and assist the island in the aftermath of the catastrophic earthquake? (Does having famous Annie Leibovitz do a photo shoot in a Security Council Chamber for a Vogue layout count?)
How about when Iran was elected to the UN Women’s Commission? This commission was created to promoted gender equality and advancement of women. And Iran was elected to this commission. Yes, Iran. The country with the Islamic cleric, Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi that blamed earthquakes on immodest female behavior-
“Many women who do not dress modestly … lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes,”
And Ambassador Rice did nothing, said nothing about Iran being elected.
And when Libya was elected to the Humans Rights Council, she was not present to voice dissent. Why? What could take precedence? Flying to a UN panel discussion on global sustainability in South Africa seemed to carry more importance, somehow.
And we come to how Israel is treated. In 2010, Ambassador Rice decides to stay home for Memorial Day weekend as opposed to attending an emergency UN meeting over the Gaza Flotilla debacle. Then on September 27, 2012 instead of attending Israeli Ambassador Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech in New York City, NY she chose to dine with foreign ministers. Who else do we all know that snubbed Ambassador Netanyahu? The dots they are a-connectin’.
I’m uncertain how expecting competence is either racist or sexist. Susan Rice wasn’t strong armed into her position, why do we have to be strong armed into accepting less than what America is worth or be silenced when we have doubts because it could be considered a dog whistle, code word–insert leftist talking point of the day here. This double standard of a minority can do anything anyone else can, until they can’t, at which point, it’s unfair, so we must allow them latitude, is appalling to me in this supposed enlightened time. Shouldn’t we be far beyond this by now? Do I, as a woman feel unequal to, well, anyone? No. I was raised to think for myself, do for myself and understand I am responsible for myself and my actions. Many people influenced me throughout my life, but none of them stood before me and cleared my path. Simply gave me advice on how to walk on it.
A woman I very much admire said something that bears repeating-
“… it’s good to have female or minority role models. But the important thing is to have mentors who care about you, and they come in all colors.”
This was from our former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Source: ConservativeReport.org
November 23, 2012
On November 19, 2012 Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) sent President Barack Obama a letter, urging him not to nominate Ambassador Rice for the position of Secretary of State, citing-
“Ambassador Rice is widely viewed as having either willfully or incompetently misled the American public in the Benghazi matter. Her actions plausibly give U.S. allies (and rivals) abroad reason to question U.S. commitment and credibility when needed. Thus, we believe that making her the face of U.S. foreign policy in your second term would greatly undermine your desire to improve U.S. relations with the world and continue to build trust with the American people.”
Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) came out with strong words against the possible appointment. Stating to do whatever within their power to block the nomination, Sen. Graham said baldly “I don’t trust her”. Well, on most days that end in y I don’t trust Mr. Grahamnesty, but that blunt bit of honesty was refreshing.
But it seems rather obvious that Mr. Obama does trust Susan Rice. Or at least feels the need to defend her. On his first scheduled press conference in over half a year, he comes out to rescue his beleaguered ambassador. Directly from his press conference-
“If Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. When they go after the U.N. ambassador apparently because they think she’s an easy target, then they’ve got a problem with me.”
Even the President of the United States thinks our UN Ambassador is nothing but a helpless, hapless wench that requires a man to stand up for her. No? Why else the arrogant “go after me” comment? He has no problem with Secretary Clinton handling her battles (and his, for that matter, it’s in the job description…oh wait…) Does he coddle Janet Napolitano? Valerie Jarrett? So why does he think Susan Rice, who needs his protection, should be our representative to world leaders? Was her body of work with the UN so exemplary that it overshadows the fact that she lied, for days, about the cause of the massacre in Benghazi, Libya that took the lives of four Americans?
If you ask Susan Rice, she believes she has-
“We’ve repaired frayed relations with countries around the world. We’ve ended needless American isolation on a wide range of issues. And as a consequence, we’ve gotten strong cooperation on things that matter most to our national security interest.”
When you’ve had China and Russia veto down three of your resolutions? When you’ve skipped several Security Council meetings? Or pulled a no-show for the Council’s Haiti crisis meeting to expand the UN’s presence there to stabilize and assist the island in the aftermath of the catastrophic earthquake? (Does having famous Annie Leibovitz do a photo shoot in a Security Council Chamber for a Vogue layout count?)
How about when Iran was elected to the UN Women’s Commission? This commission was created to promoted gender equality and advancement of women. And Iran was elected to this commission. Yes, Iran. The country with the Islamic cleric, Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi that blamed earthquakes on immodest female behavior-
“Many women who do not dress modestly … lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes,”
And Ambassador Rice did nothing, said nothing about Iran being elected.
And when Libya was elected to the Humans Rights Council, she was not present to voice dissent. Why? What could take precedence? Flying to a UN panel discussion on global sustainability in South Africa seemed to carry more importance, somehow.
And we come to how Israel is treated. In 2010, Ambassador Rice decides to stay home for Memorial Day weekend as opposed to attending an emergency UN meeting over the Gaza Flotilla debacle. Then on September 27, 2012 instead of attending Israeli Ambassador Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech in New York City, NY she chose to dine with foreign ministers. Who else do we all know that snubbed Ambassador Netanyahu? The dots they are a-connectin’.
I’m uncertain how expecting competence is either racist or sexist. Susan Rice wasn’t strong armed into her position, why do we have to be strong armed into accepting less than what America is worth or be silenced when we have doubts because it could be considered a dog whistle, code word–insert leftist talking point of the day here. This double standard of a minority can do anything anyone else can, until they can’t, at which point, it’s unfair, so we must allow them latitude, is appalling to me in this supposed enlightened time. Shouldn’t we be far beyond this by now? Do I, as a woman feel unequal to, well, anyone? No. I was raised to think for myself, do for myself and understand I am responsible for myself and my actions. Many people influenced me throughout my life, but none of them stood before me and cleared my path. Simply gave me advice on how to walk on it.
“… it’s good to have female or minority role models. But the important thing is to have mentors who care about you, and they come in all colors.”
This was from our former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Source: ConservativeReport.org
Friday, November 23, 2012
Salon's Foolish Attempt to Further Distort Reality in Young Americans
DRUNK ON STUPIDITY HOLIDAY EDITION: A holiday guide to arguing with your right-wing relatives
As hard to believe as it may sound, there are actually still Obamaphyles out there that believe the election was a sort of moratorium on truth, individual liberties and religious freedom. But then it could just be a last ditch effort by another faltering spin site to seek attention before it closes down..
Salon: A holiday guide to arguing with your right-wing relatives
(Explaining voter fraud, Benghazi and the fiscal cliff to Fox-watching family members)
As hard to believe as it may sound, there are actually still Obamaphyles out there that believe the election was a sort of moratorium on truth, individual liberties and religious freedom. But then it could just be a last ditch effort by another faltering spin site to seek attention before it closes down..
Salon: A holiday guide to arguing with your right-wing relatives
(Explaining voter fraud, Benghazi and the fiscal cliff to Fox-watching family members)
Fail: Lone Union Worker Walks Out of Walmart
November 23, 2012
by Ben Shapiro
(Breitbart.com) - In an inspiring example of Union Fail, the planned union walkout on Walmart during Black Friday led off with a one-employee walkout at a Walmart in St. Cloud, Florida on Wednesday. The walkout was led by – and entirely constituted by – Vanessa Ferreira, 59. She told her manager that she was going on strike. The other workers watched her leave, shrugged, and went back about their business. The police then warned Ferreira for trespass.
Ferreira has worked for Walmart for eight years in the cakes department, where she decorates cakes. But she says that her wages are too low – at nearly $12 per hour – to survive on. Which, of course, begs the question of how she’s been living on those wages for eight years.
“They pay low wages, then the taxpayers pick up the tab for food stamps and Medicaid,” said Ferreira. “They need to take care of their people. They need to be responsible to their workers.”
Huffington Post tried to champion Ferreira as a brave soul:
Whatever strikes hit Walmart stores this Friday, it's likely only a small, perhaps miniscule fraction of the retailer's 1.4-million member U.S. workforce will take part. And though news footage may show boisterous gatherings by activists outside stores, the more daring acts of protest will have been undertaken by individual workers like Ferreira who walk out when there are no TV cameras around. In recent days, it became clear that if she went on strike she would probably do so alone.
But even Ferreira acknowledges that the other Walmart employees say she doesn’t speak for them, and are annoyed by her theatrics.
by Ben Shapiro
Ferreira has worked for Walmart for eight years in the cakes department, where she decorates cakes. But she says that her wages are too low – at nearly $12 per hour – to survive on. Which, of course, begs the question of how she’s been living on those wages for eight years.
“They pay low wages, then the taxpayers pick up the tab for food stamps and Medicaid,” said Ferreira. “They need to take care of their people. They need to be responsible to their workers.”
Huffington Post tried to champion Ferreira as a brave soul:
Whatever strikes hit Walmart stores this Friday, it's likely only a small, perhaps miniscule fraction of the retailer's 1.4-million member U.S. workforce will take part. And though news footage may show boisterous gatherings by activists outside stores, the more daring acts of protest will have been undertaken by individual workers like Ferreira who walk out when there are no TV cameras around. In recent days, it became clear that if she went on strike she would probably do so alone.
But even Ferreira acknowledges that the other Walmart employees say she doesn’t speak for them, and are annoyed by her theatrics.
For Fourth Straight Year, Obama's Thanksgiving Message Doesn't Thank God
November 23, 2012
by Ben Shapiro
(Breitbart.com) - Yet again, President Obama’s Thanksgiving message eschewed any direct reference to thanking God, making this the fourth straight year in which the President of the United States has ignored the central message of the holiday in favor of political grandstanding.
This year, Obama’s central message was that now that he’s been re-elected, Americans should agree with all of his policies. His unity routine sounds strangely empty after a campaign in which he focused on dividing Americans:
But most of all, it’s a time to give thanks for each other, and for the incredible bounty we enjoy.
That’s especially important this year. As a nation, we’ve just emerged from a campaign season that was passionate, noisy, and vital to our democracy. But it also required us to make choices – and sometimes those choices led us to focus on what sets us apart instead of what ties us together; on what candidate we support instead of what country we belong to ….
We’re also grateful that this country has always been home to Americans who see these blessings not simply as gifts to enjoy, but as opportunities to give back. Americans who believe we have a responsibility to look out for those less fortunate – to pull each other up and move forward together.
How are we supposed to move forward together, you ask? Why, with greater government spending, of course!
As for God, here was the only mention – as a throwaway line in a hackneyed aphorism, used constantly by this president for communitarian sloganeering:
As Americans, we are a bold, generous, big-hearted people. When our brothers and sisters are in need, we roll up our sleeves and get to work – not for the recognition or the reward, but because it’s the right thing to do. Because there but for the grace of God go I. And because here in America, we rise or fall together, as one nation and one people.
No mention of thanking God. None.
But, of course, we’re used to this. In 2011, there was no mention of God at all. In 2010, Obama was closer, but still missed the mark (“we’ll spend some time taking stock of what we’re thankful for: the God-given bounty of America, and the blessings of one another”). In 2009, Obama didn’t thank God, either.
Compare that to Obama’s Thanksgiving Day proclamations, which he does not read or speak. Those are filled with God – at least for the last three years. In his first year, filled with the vim and vigor of his original election, Obama preferred to eschew any direct thanking of God even in his proclamation.
2012: “On Thanksgiving Day, individuals from all walks of life come together to celebrate this most American tradition, grateful for the blessings of family, community, and country. Let us spend this day by lifting up those we love, mindful of the grace bestowed upon us by God and by all who have made our lives richer with their presence.”
2011: “As we gather in our communities and in our homes, around the table or near the hearth, we give thanks to each other and to God for the many kindnesses and comforts that grace our lives. Let us pause to recount the simple gifts that sustain us, and resolve to pay them forward in the year to come.”
2010: “As Americans gather for the time-honored Thanksgiving Day meal, let us rejoice in the abundance that graces our tables, in the simple gifts that mark our days, in the loved ones who enrich our lives, and in the gifts of a gracious God.”
Of course, nobody sees these proclamations, so Obama doesn’t have to be embarrassed about them.
It’s no wonder that this President’s Democratic National Committee platform tried to remove God. He’s not a big fan of the Big Guy. Even on Thanksgiving. After all, what need do you have for God when you’ve got the state?
by Ben Shapiro
(Breitbart.com) - Yet again, President Obama’s Thanksgiving message eschewed any direct reference to thanking God, making this the fourth straight year in which the President of the United States has ignored the central message of the holiday in favor of political grandstanding.
This year, Obama’s central message was that now that he’s been re-elected, Americans should agree with all of his policies. His unity routine sounds strangely empty after a campaign in which he focused on dividing Americans:
But most of all, it’s a time to give thanks for each other, and for the incredible bounty we enjoy.
That’s especially important this year. As a nation, we’ve just emerged from a campaign season that was passionate, noisy, and vital to our democracy. But it also required us to make choices – and sometimes those choices led us to focus on what sets us apart instead of what ties us together; on what candidate we support instead of what country we belong to ….
We’re also grateful that this country has always been home to Americans who see these blessings not simply as gifts to enjoy, but as opportunities to give back. Americans who believe we have a responsibility to look out for those less fortunate – to pull each other up and move forward together.
How are we supposed to move forward together, you ask? Why, with greater government spending, of course!
As for God, here was the only mention – as a throwaway line in a hackneyed aphorism, used constantly by this president for communitarian sloganeering:
As Americans, we are a bold, generous, big-hearted people. When our brothers and sisters are in need, we roll up our sleeves and get to work – not for the recognition or the reward, but because it’s the right thing to do. Because there but for the grace of God go I. And because here in America, we rise or fall together, as one nation and one people.
No mention of thanking God. None.
But, of course, we’re used to this. In 2011, there was no mention of God at all. In 2010, Obama was closer, but still missed the mark (“we’ll spend some time taking stock of what we’re thankful for: the God-given bounty of America, and the blessings of one another”). In 2009, Obama didn’t thank God, either.
Compare that to Obama’s Thanksgiving Day proclamations, which he does not read or speak. Those are filled with God – at least for the last three years. In his first year, filled with the vim and vigor of his original election, Obama preferred to eschew any direct thanking of God even in his proclamation.
2012: “On Thanksgiving Day, individuals from all walks of life come together to celebrate this most American tradition, grateful for the blessings of family, community, and country. Let us spend this day by lifting up those we love, mindful of the grace bestowed upon us by God and by all who have made our lives richer with their presence.”
2011: “As we gather in our communities and in our homes, around the table or near the hearth, we give thanks to each other and to God for the many kindnesses and comforts that grace our lives. Let us pause to recount the simple gifts that sustain us, and resolve to pay them forward in the year to come.”
2010: “As Americans gather for the time-honored Thanksgiving Day meal, let us rejoice in the abundance that graces our tables, in the simple gifts that mark our days, in the loved ones who enrich our lives, and in the gifts of a gracious God.”
Of course, nobody sees these proclamations, so Obama doesn’t have to be embarrassed about them.
It’s no wonder that this President’s Democratic National Committee platform tried to remove God. He’s not a big fan of the Big Guy. Even on Thanksgiving. After all, what need do you have for God when you’ve got the state?
Saudi Arabia implements electronic tracking system for women
November 23, 2012
RIYADH — Denied the right to travel without consent from their male guardians and banned from driving, women in Saudi Arabia are now monitored by an electronic system that tracks any cross-border movements.
Since last week, Saudi women’s male guardians began receiving text messages on their phones informing them when women under their custody leave the country, even if they are travelling together.
Manal al-Sherif, who became the symbol of a campaign launched last year urging Saudi women to defy a driving ban, began spreading the information on Twitter, after she was alerted by a couple.
The husband, who was travelling with his wife, received a text message from the immigration authorities informing him that his wife had left the international airport in Riyadh.
“The authorities are using technology to monitor women,” said columnist Badriya al-Bishr, who criticised the “state of slavery under which women are held” in the ultra-conservative kingdom.
Women are not allowed to leave the kingdom without permission from their male guardian, who must give his consent by signing what is known as the “yellow sheet” at the airport or border.
The move by the Saudi authorities was swiftly condemned on social network Twitter — a rare bubble of freedom for millions in the kingdom — with critics mocking the decision.
“Hello Taliban, herewith some tips from the Saudi e-government!” read one post.
“Why don’t you cuff your women with tracking ankle bracelets too?” wrote Israa.
“Why don’t we just install a microchip into our women to track them around?” joked another.
“If I need an SMS to let me know my wife is leaving Saudi Arabia, then I’m either married to the wrong woman or need a psychiatrist,” tweeted Hisham.
“This is technology used to serve backwardness in order to keep women imprisoned,” said Bishr, the columnist.
“It would have been better for the government to busy itself with finding a solution for women subjected to domestic violence” than track their movements into and out of the country.
Saudi Arabia applies a strict interpretation of sharia, or Islamic law, and is the only country in the world where women are not allowed to drive.
In June 2011, female activists launched a campaign to defy the ban, with many arrested for doing so and forced to sign a pledge they will never drive again.
No law specifically forbids women in Saudi Arabia from driving, but the interior minister formally banned them after 47 women were arrested and punished after demonstrating in cars in November 1990.
Last year, King Abdullah — a cautious reformer — granted women the right to vote and run in the 2015 municipal elections, a historic first for the country.
In January, the 89-year-old monarch appointed Sheikh Abdullatif Abdel Aziz al-Sheikh, a moderate, to head the notorious religious police commission, which enforces the kingdom’s severe version of sharia law.
Following his appointment, Sheikh banned members of the commission from harassing Saudi women over their behaviour and attire, raising hopes a more lenient force will ease draconian social constraints in the country.
But the kingdom’s “religious establishment” is still to blame for the discrimination of women in Saudi Arabia, says liberal activist Suad Shemmari.
“Saudi women are treated as minors throughout their lives even if they hold high positions,” said Shemmari, who believes “there can never be reform in the kingdom without changing the status of women and treating them” as equals to men.
But that seems a very long way off.
The kingdom enforces strict rules governing mixing between the sexes, while women are forced to wear a veil and a black cloak, or abaya, that covers them from head to toe except for their hands and faces.
The many restrictions on women have led to high rates of female unemployment, officially estimated at around 30 percent.
In October, local media published a justice ministry directive allowing all women lawyers who have a law degree and who have spent at least three years working in a lawyer’s office to plead cases in court.
But the ruling, which was to take effect this month, has not been implemented.
source: The Raw Story
Since last week, Saudi women’s male guardians began receiving text messages on their phones informing them when women under their custody leave the country, even if they are travelling together.
Manal al-Sherif, who became the symbol of a campaign launched last year urging Saudi women to defy a driving ban, began spreading the information on Twitter, after she was alerted by a couple.
The husband, who was travelling with his wife, received a text message from the immigration authorities informing him that his wife had left the international airport in Riyadh.
“The authorities are using technology to monitor women,” said columnist Badriya al-Bishr, who criticised the “state of slavery under which women are held” in the ultra-conservative kingdom.
Women are not allowed to leave the kingdom without permission from their male guardian, who must give his consent by signing what is known as the “yellow sheet” at the airport or border.
The move by the Saudi authorities was swiftly condemned on social network Twitter — a rare bubble of freedom for millions in the kingdom — with critics mocking the decision.
“Hello Taliban, herewith some tips from the Saudi e-government!” read one post.
“Why don’t you cuff your women with tracking ankle bracelets too?” wrote Israa.
“Why don’t we just install a microchip into our women to track them around?” joked another.
“If I need an SMS to let me know my wife is leaving Saudi Arabia, then I’m either married to the wrong woman or need a psychiatrist,” tweeted Hisham.
“This is technology used to serve backwardness in order to keep women imprisoned,” said Bishr, the columnist.
“It would have been better for the government to busy itself with finding a solution for women subjected to domestic violence” than track their movements into and out of the country.
Saudi Arabia applies a strict interpretation of sharia, or Islamic law, and is the only country in the world where women are not allowed to drive.
In June 2011, female activists launched a campaign to defy the ban, with many arrested for doing so and forced to sign a pledge they will never drive again.
No law specifically forbids women in Saudi Arabia from driving, but the interior minister formally banned them after 47 women were arrested and punished after demonstrating in cars in November 1990.
Last year, King Abdullah — a cautious reformer — granted women the right to vote and run in the 2015 municipal elections, a historic first for the country.
In January, the 89-year-old monarch appointed Sheikh Abdullatif Abdel Aziz al-Sheikh, a moderate, to head the notorious religious police commission, which enforces the kingdom’s severe version of sharia law.
Following his appointment, Sheikh banned members of the commission from harassing Saudi women over their behaviour and attire, raising hopes a more lenient force will ease draconian social constraints in the country.
But the kingdom’s “religious establishment” is still to blame for the discrimination of women in Saudi Arabia, says liberal activist Suad Shemmari.
“Saudi women are treated as minors throughout their lives even if they hold high positions,” said Shemmari, who believes “there can never be reform in the kingdom without changing the status of women and treating them” as equals to men.
But that seems a very long way off.
The kingdom enforces strict rules governing mixing between the sexes, while women are forced to wear a veil and a black cloak, or abaya, that covers them from head to toe except for their hands and faces.
The many restrictions on women have led to high rates of female unemployment, officially estimated at around 30 percent.
In October, local media published a justice ministry directive allowing all women lawyers who have a law degree and who have spent at least three years working in a lawyer’s office to plead cases in court.
But the ruling, which was to take effect this month, has not been implemented.
source: The Raw Story
Obama’s FBI Uses Media to Smear a Whistleblower
November 23, 2012
Cliff Kincaid
(Accuracy In Media) - In a story headlined, “FBI Agent in Petraeus Case Under Scrutiny,” The Wall Street Journal began the process of trying to smear the courageous and honest FBI agent who started the investigation that led to the resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus. A so-called “shirtless photo” of the FBI agent was said to be evidence of an illicit affair between the agent and a woman in the case, compromising the entire investigation.
The Journal claimed its information came from “officials familiar with the probe.”
What the officials knew but didn’t disclose to the Journal is that the photo was a joke with no sexual connotations and no possible relevance to the investigation of Petraeus and his mistress, Paula Broadwell.
The media had been duped. Liberal and conservative news outlets, ranging from Talking Points Memo to Hot Air, picked up the smear of the agent in the case. Even Fox News ran with the charge.
One far-left website carried the story one step further, alleging that the agent was a secret Tea Party operative: “Shirtless FBI Tea Party Sympathizer Responsible For Petraeus’ Downfall.”
What we were witnessing was the first volley in a media campaign by the Obama Justice Department and FBI officials to play down the serious nature of the national security scandal and the release of classified information likely obtained by America’s adversaries and enemies.
The Journal story by Devlin Barrett, Evan Perez, and Siobhan Gorman reported that the agent “allegedly sent shirtless photos of himself to a woman involved in the case prior to the investigation.” The word “allegedly” was used at this time because the reporters clearly didn’t have access to the photo and were taking the word of the FBI or Justice Department officials feeding them the story.
“One official said the agent in question sent shirtless photos to Ms. [Jill] Kelley well before the email investigation began, and FBI officials only became aware of them sometime later,” the paper said.
It later came out that the “shirtless photo,” which has been published by the New York Daily News and other papers, was “actually an innocent gag that Humphries sent to dozens of other friends.” The paper added, “In the photo, taken in 2010, the gun-ho G-man poses shirtless between two buff target dummies after practicing with SWAT teams at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla.”
Mike Carter of The Seattle Times broke the story of what was really in the “shirtless photograph,” noting that it was “a tongue-in-cheek joke” sent by the FBI agent, Frederick W. Humphries, to dozens of friends and acquaintances and even went to a reporter at The Seattle Times in 2010. Humphries had once been based in Seattle.
Carter said, “… among his friends and associates, Humphries was known to send dumb-joke emails in which the punch line was provided by opening an attached photo…The photo was sent from a joint personal email account shared by Humphries’ wife. Humphries said that, at one point, his supervisor posted the picture on an FBI bulletin board as a joke and that his wife, a teacher, has a framed copy.”
The smear of the agent has thus backfired. But there is a lesson here as to the lengths the Obama Justice Department and its FBI will go to smear anybody who blows the whistle on how state secrets are being mishandled by this administration and its top officials.
The Journal story was obviously designed to divert attention away from the FBI’s mishandling of the case. The agent had gone to Republican members of Congress with the story more than a week before the election because he feared the Bureau was failing to pursue the investigation of Petraeus and was protecting Obama from the fallout from the scandal. Those members, Eric Cantor and Dave Reichert, did not, however, do anything with the information, other than turn it back over to the FBI, which already had it.
Diversionary tactics are also being used by the government to mislead and confuse the public about the serious problem of Broadwell having violated federal law by illegally possessing classified information.
ABC World News reports that while Broadwell “allegedly took secret files from secure government buildings and stored them on a personal computer, and in her home,” some anonymous “sources” say that “some of the files are old” and Broadwell did not intend to harm national security.”
These “sources” are probably the same people who smeared the FBI agent for starting the investigation. They are embarrassed that material was leaking to Broadwell and that the FBI did not get to the bottom of the scandal sooner.
The ABC report, “Friend Says Paula Broadwell Regrets Damage,” was done by Pierre Thomas, who covers the Justice Department.
Kimberly Dozier, an intelligence writer for Associated Press, apparently has some of the same sources. She reported that “investigators” say that many of her classified documents are “old” and “may no longer be classified despite their labels…” What’s more, Broadwell says she did not get them from Petraeus, Dozier reported, as if Broadwell can be believed.
Petraeus, of course, is also letting it be known through his friends in the media, such as Kyra Phillips, that he would never have released classified information to Broadwell.
Shaun Waterman of The Washington Times has gone outside the Justice Department for an opinion on the case and talked to a former spy catcher. What she told Waterman, a national and homeland security reporter for the paper, is not reassuring.
Michelle Van Cleave, who served as the National Counterintelligence Executive under President George W. Bush, told the paper that “investigators should assume that foreign intelligence services might have already hacked into Mrs. Broadwell’s computer.” She said, “As someone who has done damage assessments for the U.S. government, I can tell you that it would be standard practice to assume that classified material on an unclassified computer in a situation like that has already been compromised.”
By the same token, it is also clear that foreign intelligence services could have hacked into the shared e-mail account that Petraeus and Broadwell used to write intimate messages to each other.
Cliff Kincaid
The Journal claimed its information came from “officials familiar with the probe.”
What the officials knew but didn’t disclose to the Journal is that the photo was a joke with no sexual connotations and no possible relevance to the investigation of Petraeus and his mistress, Paula Broadwell.
The media had been duped. Liberal and conservative news outlets, ranging from Talking Points Memo to Hot Air, picked up the smear of the agent in the case. Even Fox News ran with the charge.
One far-left website carried the story one step further, alleging that the agent was a secret Tea Party operative: “Shirtless FBI Tea Party Sympathizer Responsible For Petraeus’ Downfall.”
What we were witnessing was the first volley in a media campaign by the Obama Justice Department and FBI officials to play down the serious nature of the national security scandal and the release of classified information likely obtained by America’s adversaries and enemies.
The Journal story by Devlin Barrett, Evan Perez, and Siobhan Gorman reported that the agent “allegedly sent shirtless photos of himself to a woman involved in the case prior to the investigation.” The word “allegedly” was used at this time because the reporters clearly didn’t have access to the photo and were taking the word of the FBI or Justice Department officials feeding them the story.
“One official said the agent in question sent shirtless photos to Ms. [Jill] Kelley well before the email investigation began, and FBI officials only became aware of them sometime later,” the paper said.
It later came out that the “shirtless photo,” which has been published by the New York Daily News and other papers, was “actually an innocent gag that Humphries sent to dozens of other friends.” The paper added, “In the photo, taken in 2010, the gun-ho G-man poses shirtless between two buff target dummies after practicing with SWAT teams at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla.”
Mike Carter of The Seattle Times broke the story of what was really in the “shirtless photograph,” noting that it was “a tongue-in-cheek joke” sent by the FBI agent, Frederick W. Humphries, to dozens of friends and acquaintances and even went to a reporter at The Seattle Times in 2010. Humphries had once been based in Seattle.
Carter said, “… among his friends and associates, Humphries was known to send dumb-joke emails in which the punch line was provided by opening an attached photo…The photo was sent from a joint personal email account shared by Humphries’ wife. Humphries said that, at one point, his supervisor posted the picture on an FBI bulletin board as a joke and that his wife, a teacher, has a framed copy.”
The smear of the agent has thus backfired. But there is a lesson here as to the lengths the Obama Justice Department and its FBI will go to smear anybody who blows the whistle on how state secrets are being mishandled by this administration and its top officials.
The Journal story was obviously designed to divert attention away from the FBI’s mishandling of the case. The agent had gone to Republican members of Congress with the story more than a week before the election because he feared the Bureau was failing to pursue the investigation of Petraeus and was protecting Obama from the fallout from the scandal. Those members, Eric Cantor and Dave Reichert, did not, however, do anything with the information, other than turn it back over to the FBI, which already had it.
Diversionary tactics are also being used by the government to mislead and confuse the public about the serious problem of Broadwell having violated federal law by illegally possessing classified information.
ABC World News reports that while Broadwell “allegedly took secret files from secure government buildings and stored them on a personal computer, and in her home,” some anonymous “sources” say that “some of the files are old” and Broadwell did not intend to harm national security.”
These “sources” are probably the same people who smeared the FBI agent for starting the investigation. They are embarrassed that material was leaking to Broadwell and that the FBI did not get to the bottom of the scandal sooner.
The ABC report, “Friend Says Paula Broadwell Regrets Damage,” was done by Pierre Thomas, who covers the Justice Department.
Kimberly Dozier, an intelligence writer for Associated Press, apparently has some of the same sources. She reported that “investigators” say that many of her classified documents are “old” and “may no longer be classified despite their labels…” What’s more, Broadwell says she did not get them from Petraeus, Dozier reported, as if Broadwell can be believed.
Petraeus, of course, is also letting it be known through his friends in the media, such as Kyra Phillips, that he would never have released classified information to Broadwell.
Shaun Waterman of The Washington Times has gone outside the Justice Department for an opinion on the case and talked to a former spy catcher. What she told Waterman, a national and homeland security reporter for the paper, is not reassuring.
Michelle Van Cleave, who served as the National Counterintelligence Executive under President George W. Bush, told the paper that “investigators should assume that foreign intelligence services might have already hacked into Mrs. Broadwell’s computer.” She said, “As someone who has done damage assessments for the U.S. government, I can tell you that it would be standard practice to assume that classified material on an unclassified computer in a situation like that has already been compromised.”
By the same token, it is also clear that foreign intelligence services could have hacked into the shared e-mail account that Petraeus and Broadwell used to write intimate messages to each other.
Morsi grants himself dictatorial powers -- thanks to Obama praise
November 23, 2012
Associated Press
CAIRO – Egypt's president on Thursday issued constitutional amendments that placed him above judicial oversight and ordered the retrial of Hosni Mubarak for the killing of protesters in last year's uprising.
Mohammed Morsi also decreed immunity for the Islamist-dominated panel drafting a new constitution from any possible court decisions to dissolve it, a threat that had been hanging over the controversial assembly.
Liberal and Christian members withdrew from the assembly during the past week to protest what they say is the hijacking of the process by Morsi's allies, who they saw are trying to push through a document that will have an Islamist slant marginalizing women and minority Christians and infringing on personal liberties. Several courts have been looking into cases demanding the dissolution of the panel.
The Egyptian leader also decreed that all decisions he has made since taking office in June and until a new constitution is adopted and a new parliament is elected -- which is not expected before next spring -- are not subject to appeal in court or by any other authority. He also barred any court from dissolving the Islamist-led upper house of parliament, a largely toothless body that has also faced court cases.
The moves effectively remove any oversight on Morsi, the longtime Muslim Brotherhood figure who became Egypt's first freely elected president last summer after the Feb. 11, 2011 fall of autocrat Hosni Mubarak. They come as Morsi is riding high on lavish praise from President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for mediating an end to eight days of fighting between Israel and Gaza's Hamas rulers.
Morsi not only holds executive power, he also has legislative authority after a previous court ruling just before he took office on June 30 dissolved the powerful lower house of parliament, which was led by the Brotherhood. With two branches of power in his hands, Morsi has had repeated frictions with the third, the judiciary, over recent months.
"Morsi today usurped all state powers & appointed himself Egypt's new pharaoh," pro-reform leader Mohamed ElBaradei wrote on his Twitter account. "A major blow to the revolution that could have dire consequences."
The president made most of the changes Thursday by issuing a declaration amending what has become a patchwork interim constitution in effect since Mubarak's fall. The military, which took power after Mubarak, set the precedent for the executive unilaterally issuing constitutional changes, which it did several times during its 16-month rule.
Morsi on Thursday extended by two months the deadline for the assembly to produce a draft for a new constitution, apparently to give members more time to iron out their differences.
The moves are likely to fuel growing public criticism that Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood have monopolized power while doing little to tackle the country's endemic woes. Thousands of demonstrators gathered in downtown Cairo for the fourth day running to protest against Morsi's policies and criticize the Muslim Brotherhood, the fundamentalist group from which the Egyptian leader hails.
The decree for a retrial of Mubarak appeared aimed at making a gesture to the public. The decree called for "new investigations and trials" against those who held "political or executive" positions in the old regime and who are accused of killing protesters.
Mubarak was convicted in June to life in prison for failing to stop the killing of protesters during last year's uprising against his rule, but many Egyptians were angered that he wasn't convicted of actually ordering the crackdown and that his security chief, Habib el-Adly, was not sentenced to death. Several top police commanders were acquitted, and Mubarak and his sons were found not guilty of corruption charges.
But the decree would not mean retrials for the dozens of lower-level police officers who have been acquitted or received suspended sentences in trials for killing protesters -- verdicts that have outraged many Egyptians.
That exclusion will guarantee Morsi the loyalty of the powerful but hated police force which had abandoned the streets for more than a year after Mubarak's ouster by a popular uprising motivated in large part by the human rights violations of the police and the notorious security services.
Morsi on Thursday also fired the country's top prosecutor, Abdel-Maguid Mahmoud, who has been in the job since 2006. A Mubarak-era appointee, Mahmoud has faced widespread accusations that his office did a shoddy job collecting evidence against Mubarak, el-Adly and the police commanders.
Morsi first fired Mahmoud in October but had to rescind his decision when he found that the powers of his office do not empower him to do so. So on Thursday, he decreed that the prosecutor general could serve in office only for four years, with immediate effect. Morsi replaced Mahmoud with Talaat Abdullah, a career judge.
Shortly before Morsi's decisions were announced, hundreds of Morsi supporters gathered outside Mahmoud's office chanting slogans against him and demanding the "cleansing of the judiciary."
Thursday's decisions were read on state television by Morsi's spokesman, Yasser Ali. In a throwback to the days of the authoritarian Mubarak and his predecessor Anwar Sadat and Gamal Abdel-Nasser, the television followed up with a slew of nationalist songs. The introductions of the decrees declared that they were designed to "protect" the revolution and dismantle the old regime, a nod to the revolutionaries who have long complained that not enough was being done to reform the country after Mubarak's 29-year rule.
Morsi narrowly won the presidency -- about 52 percent of the vote -- to become Egypt's first freely elected and civilian president, ending nearly six decades of de facto military rule.
source: fox news
hat tip: Michael Savage
Listen to the Savage Nation>
Associated Press
Mohammed Morsi also decreed immunity for the Islamist-dominated panel drafting a new constitution from any possible court decisions to dissolve it, a threat that had been hanging over the controversial assembly.
Liberal and Christian members withdrew from the assembly during the past week to protest what they say is the hijacking of the process by Morsi's allies, who they saw are trying to push through a document that will have an Islamist slant marginalizing women and minority Christians and infringing on personal liberties. Several courts have been looking into cases demanding the dissolution of the panel.
The Egyptian leader also decreed that all decisions he has made since taking office in June and until a new constitution is adopted and a new parliament is elected -- which is not expected before next spring -- are not subject to appeal in court or by any other authority. He also barred any court from dissolving the Islamist-led upper house of parliament, a largely toothless body that has also faced court cases.
The moves effectively remove any oversight on Morsi, the longtime Muslim Brotherhood figure who became Egypt's first freely elected president last summer after the Feb. 11, 2011 fall of autocrat Hosni Mubarak. They come as Morsi is riding high on lavish praise from President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for mediating an end to eight days of fighting between Israel and Gaza's Hamas rulers.
Morsi not only holds executive power, he also has legislative authority after a previous court ruling just before he took office on June 30 dissolved the powerful lower house of parliament, which was led by the Brotherhood. With two branches of power in his hands, Morsi has had repeated frictions with the third, the judiciary, over recent months.
"Morsi today usurped all state powers & appointed himself Egypt's new pharaoh," pro-reform leader Mohamed ElBaradei wrote on his Twitter account. "A major blow to the revolution that could have dire consequences."
The president made most of the changes Thursday by issuing a declaration amending what has become a patchwork interim constitution in effect since Mubarak's fall. The military, which took power after Mubarak, set the precedent for the executive unilaterally issuing constitutional changes, which it did several times during its 16-month rule.
Morsi on Thursday extended by two months the deadline for the assembly to produce a draft for a new constitution, apparently to give members more time to iron out their differences.
The moves are likely to fuel growing public criticism that Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood have monopolized power while doing little to tackle the country's endemic woes. Thousands of demonstrators gathered in downtown Cairo for the fourth day running to protest against Morsi's policies and criticize the Muslim Brotherhood, the fundamentalist group from which the Egyptian leader hails.
The decree for a retrial of Mubarak appeared aimed at making a gesture to the public. The decree called for "new investigations and trials" against those who held "political or executive" positions in the old regime and who are accused of killing protesters.
Mubarak was convicted in June to life in prison for failing to stop the killing of protesters during last year's uprising against his rule, but many Egyptians were angered that he wasn't convicted of actually ordering the crackdown and that his security chief, Habib el-Adly, was not sentenced to death. Several top police commanders were acquitted, and Mubarak and his sons were found not guilty of corruption charges.
But the decree would not mean retrials for the dozens of lower-level police officers who have been acquitted or received suspended sentences in trials for killing protesters -- verdicts that have outraged many Egyptians.
That exclusion will guarantee Morsi the loyalty of the powerful but hated police force which had abandoned the streets for more than a year after Mubarak's ouster by a popular uprising motivated in large part by the human rights violations of the police and the notorious security services.
Morsi on Thursday also fired the country's top prosecutor, Abdel-Maguid Mahmoud, who has been in the job since 2006. A Mubarak-era appointee, Mahmoud has faced widespread accusations that his office did a shoddy job collecting evidence against Mubarak, el-Adly and the police commanders.
Morsi first fired Mahmoud in October but had to rescind his decision when he found that the powers of his office do not empower him to do so. So on Thursday, he decreed that the prosecutor general could serve in office only for four years, with immediate effect. Morsi replaced Mahmoud with Talaat Abdullah, a career judge.
Shortly before Morsi's decisions were announced, hundreds of Morsi supporters gathered outside Mahmoud's office chanting slogans against him and demanding the "cleansing of the judiciary."
Thursday's decisions were read on state television by Morsi's spokesman, Yasser Ali. In a throwback to the days of the authoritarian Mubarak and his predecessor Anwar Sadat and Gamal Abdel-Nasser, the television followed up with a slew of nationalist songs. The introductions of the decrees declared that they were designed to "protect" the revolution and dismantle the old regime, a nod to the revolutionaries who have long complained that not enough was being done to reform the country after Mubarak's 29-year rule.
Morsi narrowly won the presidency -- about 52 percent of the vote -- to become Egypt's first freely elected and civilian president, ending nearly six decades of de facto military rule.
source: fox news
hat tip: Michael Savage
Listen to the Savage Nation>
Thursday, November 22, 2012
No Hope; no Change for the blacks – VIDEO
November 22, 2012
Part One: Mike deals with the gullible ass blacks who again voted 90% for their DNC slave masters
Part Two: Mike exposes how Afro American Negro's are in love with The DNC
Twitter - 5723michael
Hat tip: Wayne @ NewsNinja2012.com
Part One: Mike deals with the gullible ass blacks who again voted 90% for their DNC slave masters
Part Two: Mike exposes how Afro American Negro's are in love with The DNC
Twitter - 5723michael
Hat tip: Wayne @ NewsNinja2012.com
The New Plan Of Attack
Fellow Patriots,
In light of Dr. Eowyns startling and disturbing report on the ‘Consent Decree’, which states by law that the GOP can not legally bitch about fraudulent activities by the underhanded Left, we now need a New Plan of attack.
I came across some interesting information today.
If anyone can find a flaw in this strategy, presented by a fellow patriot, please note it in the comments. If this works, it may be a last-resort protection our Founding Fathers left us in our Constitution for a time such as this, when the voice of the people has been completely disregarded and the election has been stolen by foreign influence.
This golden egg may just be our only “eject button” to get rid of Barack Obama and restore integrity to our nation once and for all.
Amendment 12 of the Constitution says if no person receives a majority of the electoral votes for President, the House of Representatives elects the President. In such an election the representatives from each state have one vote among them. A majority of these votes is necessary to elect the President.The 2012 election does not get decided until Mid-December when the Electoral College cast their votes. AND… if 1/3rd of the States do not cast their votes in the Electoral College, then the matter falls onto the House of Representatives to choose the President.
SO HERE IS THE PLAN:
We pressure Congressmen, State Party Officials, and groups such as Tea Party Patriots, Heritage Foundation, etc., to call on RED States to NOT have their Electors cast their vote – then the House of Reps CAN choose the next President (and Republicans still have the majority in the House of Representatives)!!!
If just 18 RED States agreed to NOT cast their votes in the electoral college – then it goes to the House. And if pressured – they just might do it.
We do NOT have to convince ANY democrats – at all. All we have to do is convince 1/3 of the States to NOT cast their electoral college votes. Well more than 1/3 of the States did in fact vote as RED States and they too can see the obvious, wide-spread vote-fraud which has taken place.
So, if the Electors in 18 (of 24) States which Romney won decided to NOT cast their electoral college votes – then the electoral college does not meet the requirement as defined in the Constitution, therefore, the electoral college becomes null and void. The matter then goes to the House.
In every State, each political party chooses its’ own “electors”. Then, whichever party wins the popular vote in each State is the party which gets to have its electors cast their vote in the electoral college.
However, according to the Constitution and the 12th Amendment, in order for the Electoral College to have a quorum – then at least 2/3rds of the States must cast their votes.
As stated in the Constitution and the 12th Amendment:
“A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States.”
So, if 1/3 of the States (17) do NOT cast their electoral college votes – then it goes to the House of Representatives (not the senate) to elect the next President.
“… if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers… the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.”
The Democrats are stealing this election and it is up to WE, the people, to put the hammer down on their widespread vote-fraud.
The founding-fathers gave us the Electoral College for several reasons. Vote-Fraud is one of those reasons.
But it is up to us to hold tightly to the Constitution. If we don’t, then we are just as guilty as those who would ignore it. The Constitution can stop the socialist machine in its’ tracks. But it is up to YOU to get on the phone and make some noise. Please call your State Party Officials, your Congressmen, and any political groups or organizations ASAP!
What YOU can do is call the contacts below and request a list of Mitt Romney’s Electors and their contact info (by law, they must provide this to you).
When you get the list, call every one of them or send a letter to every one of them, if all you have is an address, and inform them of this provision in our Constitution, which allows the House of Representatives to choose our president.
(If the electors are not yet posted here for a given state, please post them in a comment to this article)
REMEMBER- We only have until mid-December! MAKE THE CALLS! WRITE THE LETTERS!
TAKE ACTION!
~Terry
Continued: How to contact RED STATES>>
Here is a sample of a letter you can send to your state’s Electors:
Mr. or Ms. ______
Electoral College elector
State of (your state’s name)
Dear Mr. or Ms. ________
Our Founding Fathers were brilliant, learned, and thoughtful men who were mindful of the dangers of intemperate popular passions — what they called “a tyranny of the majority.” To guard against that, our Founders intentionally rejected a direct democracy for the new independent America, but instead chose an indirect democracy of a republican form of government.
In the American Republic, the popular vote would not decide America’s chief executives — the President and Vice President of the United States of America. Instead, popular passions would be mediated through the Electoral College, the members of which, while reflecting the popular votes in their respective states, would actually cast the votes for the President and Vice President.
There is now compelling evidence that massive vote fraud had been committed in the 2012 presidential election, especially in the key battleground states that played such a decisive role in the ostensible election results. Attached to this letter is an article, “22 signs of Democrat Voter Fraud in 2012 Election,” which gives the evidence in greater detail.
Given this evidence, I’m writing you to respectfully ask that you refrain from casting your Electoral College vote. It would be unconscionable for the Electoral College to vote before a systematic nationwide investigation into suspected vote fraud is undertaken. The very integrity and survival of our American Republic depends on it.
Respectfully,
(Your name here)
Encl.: 22 signs of Democrat Voter Fraud in 2012 Election
Feel free to copy, paste, and print the above sample letter as your letter.
God bless America!
~Eowyn
source: fellowship of minds