Sunday, September 30, 2012

Obama Mid East Policy Costs US an Ambassador


JERUSALEM – While echoes of the “Fast and Furious” scandal still resound in the White House, another administration decision at the heart of Obama’s Mideast policy may prove even more explosive.

Almost entirely missing from the debate surrounding the anti-U.S. attacks in Libya is the administration’s policy of arming jihadists to overthrow Mideast governments. But in the case of Libya, the arming of jihadists may have directly resulted in the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks against the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and the subsequent murder of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, private security employees and former U.S. Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

After changing its story multiple times, the White House finally conceded the deadly assault on the U.S. consulate was a planned attack linked to al-Qaida, as per information released by national intelligence agencies.

The admission prompted Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., to call for the resignation of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice for pushing the narrative that the attacks were part of a spontaneous uprising.

King may instead want to focus his investigative energies on the larger story: How the Obama administration armed Libyan rebels who were known to include al-Qaida and other anti-Western jihadists, and how the White House is currently continuing that same policy in Syria.

During the revolution against Muammar Gadhafi’s regime, the U.S. admitted to directly arming the rebel groups.

At the time, rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi boasted in an interview that a significant number of the Libyan rebels were al-Qaida gunmen, many of whom had fought U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hasidi insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but he added that the “members of al-Qaida are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader.”

Even Adm. James Stavridis, NATO supreme commander for Europe, admitted during the Libyan revolution that Libya’s rebel force may include al-Qaida: “We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al-Qaida, Hezbollah.”

At the time, former CIA officer Bruce Riedel went even further, telling the Hindustan Times: “There is no question that al-Qaida’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition. It has always been Gadhafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi. What is unclear is how much of the opposition is al-Qaida/Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – 2 percent or 80 percent.”

The arming of the Libyan rebels may have aided in the attacks on our consulate in Libya. One witness to those attacks said some of the gunmen attacking the U.S. installation had identified themselves as members of Ansar al-Shariah, which represents al-Qaida in Yemen and Libya.

The al-Qaida offshoot released a statement denying its members were behind the deadly attack, but a man identified as a leader of the Ansar brigade told Al Jazeera the group indeed took part in the Benghazi attack.

Ambassador Stevens was directly involved in arming the rebels, reported Egyptian security officials speaking to WND. Those officials claimed Stevens played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

The officials further claimed Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s forces, said the security officials.

The Egyptian security officials said Stevens also worked with the Saudis to send names of potential jihadi recruits to U.S. security organizations for review. Names found to be directly involved in previous attacks against the U.S., including in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately not recruited by the Saudis to fight in Syria, said the officials.

Regardless of Stevens’ alleged role, the Obama administration now continues to support the Syrian rebels, including the Free Syrian Army, despite widespread reports that al-Qaida is prominent among their ranks.

In addition to a reported $450 million in emergency cash for the Muslim Brotherhood-led Egyptian government, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday announced $45 million in additional aid for Syrian the opposition after nearly $100 million was provided to the Syrian rebels this year.

The problem? Last month, WND quoted a senior Syrian source claiming at lease 500 hardcore mujahedeen from Afghanistan, many of whom were spearheading efforts to fight the U.S. there, were killed in clashes with Syrian forces last month.

Also last month, WND reported Jihadiya Salafia in the Gaza Strip, a group that represents al-Qaida in the coastal territory, had declared three days of mourning for its own jihadists who died in Syria in recent weeks.

WND reported in May there was growing collaboration between the Syrian opposition and al-Qaida, as well as evidence the opposition is sending weapons to jihadists in Iraq, according to an Egyptian security official.

The military official said that Egypt has reports of collaboration between the Syrian opposition and three al-Qaida arms, including one the operates in Libya:

Jund al-Sham, which is made up of al-Qaida militants who are Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese;

Jund al-Islam, which in recent years merged with Ansar al-Islam, an extremist group of Sunni Iraqis operating under the al-Qaida banner and operating in Yemen and Libya;

Jund Ansar al-Allah, an al-Qaida group based in Gaza linked to Palestinian camps in Lebanon and Syria.

U.S. officials have stated the White House is providing nonlethal aid to the Syrian rebels, while widespread reports have claimed the U.S. has been working with Arab countries to ensure the opposition in Syria is well armed.

Catfish in Your Tank


From Greg Laurie, Harvestdirect.org

Do not marvel, my brethren, if the world hates you.
I heard a story about some fish suppliers who were having problems shipping codfish from the East Coast. By the time the fish reached the West Coast, they were spoiled. They froze them, but by the time the fish arrived, they were mushy. So the seafood company decided to send them alive. . .but the fish arrived dead. On their third try, they once more shipped the fish alive, but with one difference. They included a catfish in each tank. The catfish, you see, is the natural enemy of the codfish. By the time the codfish arrived, they were alive and well, because they had spent their trip fleeing the catfish.

Could it be that God, in His wisdom, has put a catfish in your tank to keep you alive and well spiritually? Maybe there's a person at work who always has hardball questions for you every Monday morning regarding spiritual things. Maybe it's that neighbor who constantly gives you a hard time about your faith in Jesus. Maybe it's a spouse or family member who doesn't believe. And you begin to wonder, "Why is this happening to me?"

It's just that catfish in your life. . .keeping you spiritually alert and on your toes. It's God's provision to protect you from a weak, mushy faith.

Shortly before He went to the cross, Jesus told the disciples, "If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you" (John 15:19).

God will allow persecution in the life of the believer. If you're experiencing persecution—whether subtle or out front and in the open—here are two things to remember: First, persecution confirms that you are a child of God. Be glad in that. And second, persecution causes you to cling closer to Jesus.

When you endure persecution for your faith, remember that this world is not your home.

Disinformation American Style


By Paul Kengor

Who could have imagined that one of the most audacious disinformation campaigns in American history would turn out, according to a recently declassified FBI file, to have a direct connection not only to today’s president of the United States, Barack Obama, but to top advisers David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett as well? Here, Professor Paul Kengor, author of “The Communist,” the new bestseller about Obama mentor Frank Marshall Davis, tells the incredible story of communist disinformation in America and its multiple ties to those now “fundamentally transforming” this country from the top.
If you want to see how Soviet-style disinformation has spread in our own country, look no further than the Communist Party USA. Sure, no one could spin a web of lies quite like the Soviets and the Kremlin, but their American devotees are likewise excellent at agitation, propaganda and deliberate deception. America’s communists have produced some impressive homegrown disinformation. Here, I’ll consider an especially productive example, which still bears bitter fruit today among the wider American left: the campaign against the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
In this skillful, cynical disinformation campaign, American communists, working with duped progressive/liberal accomplices, framed their accusers as “fascists,” “Nazis,” “McCarthyites” and even “racists” who were (allegedly) unfairly hounding and maligning them by investigating their ties to Moscow. In truth, the accused were frequently guilty – and, at the least, merited attention. Nonetheless, these leftist forces came together, under the leadership of the CPUSA, the Daily Worker and other far-left forces, in coordinated campaigns such as “Operation Abolition,” which sought to abolish the House Committee on Un-American Activities, which they tagged as “HUAC” – the “House Un-American Committee,” a label that sticks to this day.
Of special interest, one of those who engaged in this campaign was Frank Marshall Davis, a closet CPUSA member who in the 1970s would go on to mentor a young Hawaiian boy named Barack Obama, our current president.
Communist campaigns
Before examining this anti-”HUAC” campaign, consider a few words on the concept of communist campaigns.
Communists excelled at “campaigns” – that is, carefully concerted efforts where they exploited an issue or cause to further their agenda. Such campaigns were a very significant, still vastly unappreciated tactic vigorously employed by the communist movement throughout the 20th century. They were done with great effect, so much so that many of the outright untruths in these underhanded campaigns have slipped their way into history books as quasi-official versions of 20th century history.
These campaigns took on such a discernible, consistent pattern that they eventually prompted full-scale investigations by the U.S. government, which deciphered a clear tactic requiring constant surveillance. The FBI in the 1950s would produce a 100-plus-page report (classified) strictly on the subject of campaigns. The bureau defined campaigns as “concentrated, continuous and concerted succession of agitation and propaganda activities specifically devised and timed to sway public opinion. All communist campaigns are intended to arouse, influence and mobilize as many people as possible to further communist goals.” Those goals, naturally, included the promotion of the “welfare of the Soviet Union.” For American communists, the end-goal was always a “Soviet America,” or, as the 1930s CPUSA loyalty oath put it, “to insure the triumph of Soviet Power in the United States.”
Of special relevance to this article, communist campaigns, like communist fronts, thrived on deceit and disinformation. And American communists were vigilant in concealing their coordination. They needed to be ever ready to deny their participation.
The chief target audience in these campaigns was gullible liberals/progressives that communists believed could be duped. The dupes were indispensable to success. If the campaigns marshaled only the support of communists, they would be transparent and would collapse under public exposure. The presence of liberal/progressive dupes helped diminish the presence of communists.
The FBI noted that, “No other organization has ever engaged in so many diverse, intensive and extensive campaigns conducted with so much perseverance, deftness and potency as has the Communist Party USA.” CPUSA was “never without” a campaign of one type or another, and had been responsible for “an inestimable number of campaigns.”
The anti-’HUAC’ campaign
This brings me back to the anti-”HUAC” campaign.
One of the most controversial domestic battles of the Cold War was the fight between Congress’s House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUAA) and those accused by the committee of harboring private loyalties to the Soviet Union and international communist movement. It was before this committee that certain citizens were repeatedly asked the dramatic question, “Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?” Many of those asked pleaded the Fifth Amendment.
There is much to this drama that today is misunderstood or unappreciated. To cite just one example, the actions of the House Committee are often identified with conservatives, with the political right, with McCarthyism and the man Joe McCarthy. In truth, Senator McCarthy was never a member of thisHouse (of Representatives) Committee. In fact, throughout its history, the committee was chaired primarily by anti-communist Democrats. Its Democrat chieftains ranged from Rep. Martin Dies, D-Texas, to Rep. Francis Walter, D-Pa., to Rep. Richard Ichord, D-Mo., among others.
But more than that, and fundamental to the theme of this article, was the counter-campaign against the House Committee. That counter-campaign is known today only by a narrow group of Cold War researchers who have actually dug into the declassified archives – ranging from Soviet archives in Russia to the Comintern Archives on Communist Party USA (CPUSA), housed at the Library of Congress. A look at those archives, and other material, illuminates an interesting counter-response to the House Committee. That counter-response was a campaign called Operation Abolition.
Operation Abolition was a 1940s/1950s effort led by (among others) CPUSA, the Daily Worker, the ACLU and a splinter group from the ACLU, the National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee – headed by Corliss Lamont and I. F. Stone. The goal of this coalition of left and far-left sources was to abolish the House Committee on Un-American Activities, or at least to so question and demonize the committee in the public’s mind as to discredit the committee.
It was incredibly ironic, and utterly outrageous, that after two decades of being wrong and being duped by Stalin, by Stalinists, and by secret supporters of Stalin, that America’s liberals/progressives – led by the ACLU and National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee – would come together to find their demon not in the duped liberals/progressives or pro-communists who defended Stalin as he murdered tens of millions, but in the anti-communists who tried to tell the truth to Americans about Stalin, his murderous state and his secret supporters in America. Can you imagine? Well, that is precisely what happened. Making it worse, I. F. Stone, who we now believe was a paid Soviet agent from 1936-38, helped lead the campaign.
So intense was this campaign that Congress itself ultimately investigated the campaign. Congress correctly perceived that the campaign was built upon a larger “anti-anti-communist” campaign that liberals/progressives pushed for decades and still advance to this day. That push had been so intense and problematic in the 1950s that the Senate Judiciary Committee (run by anti-communist Democrats) would hold hearings and publish a report titled, “The New Drive Against the Anti-Communist Program.”
As noted during those hearings, leading the charge in many of these anti-anti-communist thrusts was the New York Times. As testified by the feature source in the hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Times was one of the primary “organs of anti-anti-communism,” doing so ad nauseum with “heavyweight, comatose gibberish.”
Whether gibberish or not, this work was extremely effective in stirring the emotions of liberals/progressives, with the effect of inadvertently advancing the communist cause.
‘HUAC’s’ ‘Un-Americans’
Implicit to this effectiveness, and a huge propaganda success, was the very use of the acronym “HUAC.” Language became central to the debate.
Consider: America’s communists, socialists and liberals/progressives happily inverted the phrase “un-American,” charging the House Committee itself (and its chairs and members) with being “un-American.” The political left has done this so effectively that its historic term for the House Committee on Un-American Activities is not the proper acronym, “HCUAA,” but the commonly known and widely accepted term “HUAC,” which is actually a mis-ordered acronym that incorrectly reads: House Un-American Committee. This acronym is itself a major statement. Note, too, that the term “HUAC” shows that the political left in America is not shy about labeling certain people “un-American” – a tactic that the left claims is the typical domain of the right – so long as the left is doing the labeling.
Overall, the left has done this so aggressively that it has succeeded in permanently labeling HCUAA as “HUAC.” I have noticed the results when teaching college students. In my courses, when I attempt to use the correct acronym, HCUAA, I get quizzical looks as I scribble the letters on the chalkboard. To the contrary, the moment I revert to “HUAC,” students nod, understanding what I’m referring to. The left has won this battle over language. And most ironic, the greatest champions of the term “HUAC” were American communists, who used the term incessantly in the Daily Worker and all their publications. When non-communist liberals/progressives today use that term, they are actually, whether they know it or not, employing the propaganda language of CPUSA.
Particularly brazen was the Daily Worker. In fact, it is almost laughable that the Daily Worker put “communists” in quotes when reporting on actual communists identified by HCUAA, while simultaneously not placing “HUAC” in quotes, as if the former were fantasy and the latter reality. Oftentimes, communists and liberals/progressives alike simply called HUAC “the Un-American Committee” (leaving out “House”).
Even more brazen, CPUSA, throughout the Cold War and even post-Cold War, maligned what it dubbed “the racist, McCarthyite forces of evil” and the “fascist House Un-American Activities Committee.”
Yes, fascist. This was an obscene accusation against a generation that had faced the Nazis. And yet, typical of the American left, opponents were transmogrified into political monsters: “racists,” “fascists,”“Nazis.” Liberals/progressives hurl around these vicious names still today, almost reflexively. It isn’t anything new; they and their comrades have done this for a long, long time.
Frank Marshall Davis
Interestingly, this war over language was waged not only at CPUSA organs like the Daily Worker but by a subject of remarkable modern political relevance: Frank Marshall Davis. Davis did so in his writings and publications, beginning at the Chicago Star (1946-48) and continuing with great frequency at the Honolulu Record (1949-57) – two communist-controlled publications.
For the record, Frank Marshall Davis was a card-carrying member of Communist Party USA – card no. 47544. He joined the Party in Chicago during World War II. He was founding editor-in-chief and a weekly columnist for the Chicago Star, where he wrote flawless pro-Soviet propaganda, blasting everything and everyone from the Marshall Plan and Truman Doctrine to Harry Truman and Winston Churchill. His position was always predictable: it was the Kremlin’s position. Davis continued that work in Hawaii, where he moved in 1949, and where he would eventually meet and mentor a young man named Barack Obama in the 1970s.
As to the theme of this article, I counted 43 examples of Frank Marshall Davis using the word “un-American” at the Honolulu Record in just 1949-50 alone. Some of these were in defense (to defend himself), others on offense (to attack the committee). Three times the words were typed into titles of his columns. Twice he used the word “un-Americanism.” Davis was not reticent about excoriating “the aptly named un-American committee.”
Some examples of Davis’s use of this phrase are worth highlighting:
In a May 1950 piece for the Honolulu Record, Davis described what he referred to as a natural alliance sought by bigoted anti-communists on “the un-American committee.” “This alliance with a revived Nazi Germany,” wrote Davis, “may please such persons as John Rankin of Mississippi and John Wood of Georgia, two past and present chairmen of the un-American committee whose ideas on race parallel those of Adolf Hitler.” In fact, said Davis, congressmen Rankin and Wood were not merely run-of-the-mill, redneck Democratic Party racists, but were themselves “upholders of master race theory of the Nazis.”
Frank Marshall Davis did not mince words: If America, and especially anti-communists at “HUAC,” wanted to see Nazis, they should look in the mirror.
Another “un-American” piece by Davis that is especially illuminating was a September 20, 1947, column for the Chicago Star, titled, “I got radical thoughts.” Here, Davis candidly stated that he wanted to flat-out nationalize the packing-house industry, as well as impose national price controls and a federal tax on the rich and their “excess profits.” “I’m so un-American right now,” wrote Obama’s mentor, “that I want to see price controls clamped back on this minute, a new and stronger excess profits tax put into operation, and the whole packing industry nationalized.”
What’s fascinating about this particular article is who Frank Marshall Davis worked with at the communist-controlled packing house workers’ union – and how those comrades eerily relate to today.
Working with Davis in promoting the packing-house workers union was Vernon Jarrett. They collaborated in a communist-controlled group called the Citizens’ Committee to Aid Packing-House Workers. A surviving April 12, 1948, document printed on committee letterhead, and found by researcher Trevor Loudon, lists Davis as both committee member and among the small group of journalistically inclined individuals who comprised the committee’s publicity committee. Joining Davis in both capacities was Vernon Jarrett.
Vernon Jarrett would become a major name in Chicago and known nationally. He would also become father-in-law to a young woman named Valerie Jarrett, Barack Obama’s single most important adviser.
And the links don’t end there. Also working to advance the proletariat from the packing-house workers union was the Canter family, specifically Harry and David Canter, who in the 1930s lived in the Soviet Union while Harry worked for Stalin’s government as an official translator of Lenin’s writings. Hailing originally from Boston, where Harry was secretary of Boston’s Communist Party, the Canters eventually ended up in Chicago in the 1940s, where they worked with Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s mentor. In the 1970s, David Canter would, like Davis, become a mentor – of a young man named David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist.
The links are amazing, too extraordinary to try to make up. Nonetheless, they are as true as they are shocking. And to bring this full circle to the theme of this article, the likes of the Canters worked with Frank Marshall Davis in certain circles and fronts – and the literal pages of the Chicago Star, which incessantly called for the abolition of the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
In all, whether “un-American” was hurled by Frank Marshall Davis or his liberal/progressive or communist friends, think about their argument: The left was, in effect, arguing that the true Americans were the card-carrying, closet American communists – literally pledged to Stalin’s USSR and the Comintern – whereas the un-Americans were the anti-communists, especially those elected to Congress and fulfilling their duty of investigating possible secret Soviet agents or collaborators. For these congressmen, their duties to the U.S. Constitution mandated that they pursue potential indigenous security threats.
Frank Marshall Davis and his comrades constantly tried to argue that they weren’t communists, but were mere “progressives” being unfairly hounded by Neanderthal McCarthyites and the evil “HUAC.” This was disinformation they fed to liberals, which, in turn, fomented a wider anti-”HUAC” campaign. Liberals, naturally, swallowed the bait hook, line and sinker. In truth, these guys were communists, and they were rightly being pursued for their correctly suspected pro-Soviet activities.
And yet, still today, the likes of Frank Marshall Davis himself continue to be protected by liberals who portray him as an innocent civil-rights crusader hounded by McCarthyites. Who does this? Pro-Obama liberal biographers and journalists. They do this, of course, to protect Obama. Alas, then, the disinformation curiously continues.


Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College and author of the new bestselling book “The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor.” His other books include “Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.”

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Liberals can't break their 200 year history


Democrats spent the first century of this country’s existence refusing to treat black people like human beings, and the second refusing to treat them like adults.

After fighting the Civil War to continue enslaving black people and then subjecting newly freed black Americans to vicious, humiliating Jim Crow laws and Ku Klux Klan violence, Democrats set about frantically rewriting their own ugly history.

Step 1: Switch “Democrat” to “Southerner”;

Step 2: Switch “Southerner” to “conservative Democrat”;

Step 3: Switch “conservative Democrat” to “conservative.”

Contrary to liberal folklore, the Democratic segregationists were not all Southern — and they were certainly not conservative. They were dyed-in-the-wool liberal Democrats on all the litmus-test issues of their day.

All but one remained liberal Democrats until the day they died. That’s the only one you’ve ever heard of: Strom Thurmond.

As soon as abortion is relegated to the same trash heap of history as slavery has been, liberals will be rewriting history to make Democrats the pro-lifers and Republicans the pro-choicers. That’s precisely what they’ve done with the history of race in America.

In addition to lying in the history books, liberals lied on their personal resumes. Suddenly, every liberal remembered being beaten up by a 300-pound Southern sheriff during the civil rights movement.

Among the ones who have been caught falsely gassing about their civil rights heroism are Bob Beckel, Carl Bernstein and Joseph Ellis. (Some days, it seems as if there are more liberals pretending to have been Freedom Riders than pretending to be Cherokees!)

In the 1950s and ’60s, Democrats were running segregationists for vice president, slapping Orval Faubus on the back and praising George Wallace voters for their “integrity.” (That was Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in The New York Times.)

But the moment the real civil rights struggle was over, liberals decided to become black America’s most self-important defenders.

Of course, once we got the Democrats to stop discriminating against blacks, there was no one else doing it. So liberals developed a rich fantasy life in which they played Atticus Finch and some poor white cop from Brooklyn would be designated Lester Maddox (racist Democrat, endorsed by Jimmy Carter).

White journalists who didn’t know any actual black people (other than Grady the maid) became junior G-men searching for racists under every bed, requiring a steady stream of deeply pompous editorials.

You will never see anything so brave as a liberal fighting nonexistent enemies.

The Police State in Action


Police cars screech to a halt outside your door, six deputies approach along with two social workers who warn they have information from an anonymous tipster and threaten that unless you allow them to enter RIGHT NOW, the armed officers will take your children away from you.

So your decision to allow the authorities to enter is completely voluntary?

That’s the determination of a federal judge who has relieved two social workers – Rhonda Cash and Jenna Cramer – of liability for their actions in a case brought by homeschooling parents John and Tiffany Loudermilk in Arizona.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that deputies Joshua Ray, Joseph Sousa, Richard Gagnon and Michael Danner had qualified immunity for their role in the 2005 confrontation with the Loudermilks, the parents of five children.

Jim Mason, a senior counsel for the Home School Legal Defense Association’s litigation team, which represents the Loudermilks, explained that in 2005, the couple was confronted at their door by authorities investigating a two-month-old anonymous allegation that their home was unsafe.

Faced with losing their children, Mason said, the Loudermilks opened their door to the investigators, “and the allegation was quickly proven false.”
However, the Loudermilks’ civil rights lawsuit against the social workers and the deputies, citing Fourth and 14th Amendment rights, has faced an uphill battle.

“We argued that the search of the Loudermilks’ home was coerced because the social workers used the threat of taking their children to gain access,” Mason said. “Both the social workers and sheriff’s deputies argued that they were immune to such claims because the Loudermilks ‘voluntarily’ opened their home to be investigated.”

The district court ruled in the Loudermilks’ favor in 2010, but the deputies then obtained a ruling from the 9th Circuit, which said the deputies were entitled in immunity.

Then the lower court, which originally concluded that such searches were not voluntary, changed its mind, Mason said.

“While the sheriff’s deputies had arrived on the scene late and were not insisting to enter the home, the social workers were. It was the social workers who claimed that their visit was an ‘emergency’ despite the allegation being two months old. The social workers, not the deputies, threatened to take the Loudermilk children into custody. Despite our response to the social workers’ request, the district court ruled that the social workers were also immune from violating the Loudermilks’ rights based on the ruling of the Ninth Circuit in favor of the deputies,” he said.

Mason said the organization now is considering whether there should be an appeal.

“Based on the facts and the law, it is our view that the social workers should not be entitled to the same benefit of the doubt that the Ninth Circuit afforded the deputies,” he said.

The HSLDA has noted in court papers: “For 40 terrifying minutes, this homeschooling couple had asserted their Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable search of their home. The two investigative social workers were eventually joined by six uniformed sheriff’s deputies who were called because the social workers considered the Loudermilks to be ‘uncooperative.’”

But the HSLDA said the Loudermilks were forced to allow the search when the social workers “played their ace-in-the-hole,” warning, “If you don’t let us in immediately, we will take your children into state custody.”

The court filing explains that the still-anonymous tipster told authorities that there was a danger to the children in the new home, but social services took some two months to respond.

“In the two months between receiving the anonymous report and arriving unannounced on the Loudermilks’ front porch, social services clearly never believed that the situation needed emergency intervention,” HSLDA asserted. “No one ever asked a judge for a court order. But when it came time for the social workers to complete their investigation, the family’s Fourth Amendment rights just got in the way.”

According to court filings, the Loudermilks had been building their dream home in Arizona. They eventually obtained permission from the county to move in, even though there were minor projects to be finished.

One social worker left a business card and later explained when the parents contacted the office that there had been an anonymous tip. A visit was scheduled for the social worker to investigate what allegedly was a “danger” to the children two months later.

However, the family consulted a lawyer who warned the county that the county itelf had given proper permission for the family to move in.

When social workers Cash and Cramer appeared at the home unannounced some weeks later, they threatened to take the family’s five children.

The petition says Cash “appeared to believe that her simple inability to determine the children’s living conditions was sufficient grounds for her to remove the children from their parents.”

That’s even though the social workers were allowed to talk to the children to see that they were fine. Nevertheless, the threats from Cash continued.
“Faced with unrelenting ultimatum that the officers would physically remove the children from the home unless they were admitted, together with a significant show of force, John felt that he had no option besides allowing the search of his home. He believed that he would be arrested and the children removed if he continued to refuse. … Tiffany believed her children would be immediately removed from the home if she did not allow the social workers and officers to search her home.”

The ultimate search took only minutes and uncovered no issues, showing that the “tip” was wrong.

U.S. District Judge Earl H. Carroll previously concluded the lawsuit by the family against the social workers, sheriff and deputies would be allowed to continue, because the social workers’ concerns were based on “an anonymous tip that the … Loudermilk children were being neglected and that plaintiffs’ home was uninhabitable.”

However, the judge said that under federal law, an anonymous tip “without more, does not constitute probable cause.”

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion on Obama family last year, perks questioned in new book


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

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

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

Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the “total cost of the presidency,” factoring the cost of the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,” a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.”

“The most concerning thing, I think, is the use of taxpayer funds to actually abet his re-election,” Gray, who worked in the Eisenhower administration and for other Republican presidents, said in an interview on Wednesday.

“The press has been so slow in picking up on this extraordinary increase in the president’s expenses,” Gray said.

Specifically, Gray said taxpayer dollars are subsidizing Obama’s re-election effort when he uses Air Force One to jet across the country campaigning.

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

District Court - Obama's Iran Policy Controlled by NIAC


Iran flag SC Court reveals Iranian operatives in charge of Obama’s Iran policy since 2009
A ruling handed down on September 13th by the D.C. District Federal Court has finally made clear what many have known for years–that the Obama Administration’s Iran policy was initiated and advanced by a group with illicit, hidden ties to the Iranian Regime and financed by the U.S./Israel- hating George Soros.
In 2009, Barack Obama turned over virtually all responsibility and authority for foreign policy negotiations with Iran to Trita Parsi and his National Iranian American Council (NIAC).  Founded by Parsi in 2003, the Washington-based NIAC is a powerful lobbying group that is “…widely considered the de facto lobby for the Iranian Regime in America.”
Like too many organizations that claim to represent the best interests of the nation of Iran and Iranian-Americans, the NIAC is tightly connected with and known to be funded at least in part by the George Soros empire.  Small wonder NIAC advice on dealing with Iran was replete with claims that Israeli propaganda was responsible for the negative image imposed on otherwise peace-loving, misunderstood Iranian mullahs. Not exactly a friend of Israel is George Soros. 
And how did the reputedly “non-partisan” NIAC suggest the Obama Administration proceed with negotiations? Simple. The Council “…opposes sanctions on Iran, soft-pedals any controversial events in Iran, and counsels “patience” regarding Iran’s stance towards its nuclear program.”
What better way for NIAC representatives to serve their hidden masters in Tehran than by promoting a policy of “peaceful coexistence” between the US and Iran. And to the NIAC, peaceful coexistence meant “…acceptance of [the] Iranian government, accepting Iranian hegemony in the Gulf and its place in other parts of the Middle East, removal of sanctions and pressure against Iran, abandon of assistance to the Iranian people’s resistance against the regime and etc.”
For the U.S., the consequences of this game of intrigue played by the Administration’s hand-picked, Iranian representatives are summed up in this statement by Barack Obama:  “I’ve made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not interfering with Iran’s affairs.”  And indeed, this is the path Barack Obama has followed. Not exactly reassuring words from a president charged with keeping the American public safe from a nuclear-bound administration of religious fanatics dedicated to our demise.
And it is thanks to an ill-advised lawsuit that proof of the NIAC’s wrongdoing has finally been placed before the American public. In 2008, Trita Parsi and his organization filed a defamation suit against perpetual critic Seid Dai. Dai had publicly accused Parsi of secretly working with the ruling Iranian Regime against the interests of the United States and the Iranian people. But when Parsi filed suit hoping to silence-through-intimidation such potentially lethal criticism, it opened the floodgates of legal discovery allowing Dai to demand internal NIAC documents and emails that eventually “… confirmed [Parsi’s] ties to the [Iranian] mullahs…”
Not only did recovered emails reveal that Parsi had held “…numerous secret meetings with top level IRI [Islamic Republic of Iran] officials,” “Court documents show the NIAC was guilty of: lying to members of Congress, fraudulent membership numbers, tax law violations and evasions, Lobbying Disclosure Act violation, the Foreign Agents Registration Act violations, foreign bank accounts, defrauding of federal funds, bribing of eye witnesses, etc…”
And so egregious were NIAC attempts to duck its legal responsibilities of discovery that Judge John Bates dismissed the Parsi defamation suit, ordered sanctions against Parsi for his failure to comply with discovery, and ordered Parsi to pay significant percentages of Dai’s costs and fees.
This is an immensely important story, not surprisingly “missed” in its entirety by the mainstream media.
But why has the Romney campaign not demanded Obama’s rationale for handing the foreign policy decisions of the United States and the security of the American people over to representatives of the Iranian government itself? Could voters be pleased upon finding the president had placed America’s safety from possible nuclear attack in the hands of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Let's Tax Our 401k Transactions

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and six other House Democrats have introduced legislation that would impose a transaction tax on all stock, bond and derivatives trades made by Wall Street firms, which Ellison said would raise "billions" to pay for infrastructure and jobs programs.

"The American public provided hundreds of billions to bailout Wall Street during the global fiscal crisis yet bore the brunt of the crisis with lost jobs and reduced household wealth," Ellison said Monday. "This is a phenomenally wealthy nation, yet our tax and regulatory system allowed the financial titans to amass great riches while impoverishing the systems that enable inclusive prosperity.
"A financial transaction tax protects our financial markets from speculation and provides the revenue needed to invest in the education, health and communities of the American people."


He also said it would make high-frequency trading "unprofitable," but said this would have the positive effect of reducing speculation on commodities.

Ellison noted that 30 countries around the world have some form of equity transaction tax in place, and while he was not specific, he said it would raise "billions" of dollars to help fund government programs.

Do we want to go down the road of these 30 countries throughout the world who are having their own severe financial problems? Remember, this is a nondiscriminatory tax in that it is not just the rich who make trades, your retirement funds in IRAs, 401ks, annuities and other such investments all depend on the market to provide them with the growth necessary to provide your retirement income. These happen through stock trades by the financial institutions that are holding your assets.

Ellison's bill is co-sponsored by Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Bob Filner (D-Calif.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), Pete Stark (D-Calif.) and Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.).

Protect the Internet


Barack Obama plans to, any day now, issue an illegal executive order, giving himself sweeping powers over the internet.  He is trying an unconstitutional end-run around the U.S. Congress.

He claims that he needs these powers to prevent computer hackers and terrorists from attacking the internet.

Baloney.  This Executive Order will allow the federal government to spy on American citizens.  It will give the Department of Homeland Security the power to force private internet companies to turn over all of their data to the federal government.

The conservative U.S. Justice Foundation opposes this order.  The liberal ACLU opposes this order.

I oppose this order, and you should, too!

Please stop Barack Hussein Obama from implementing this illegal executive order.  Cut off any funding that could be used to implement it.  File suit in federal court.  Even shut down the entire U.S. Senate if you have to.

Barack Hussein Obama must be stopped!

Thursday, September 13, 2012

If someone has to explain this to you, You are not a veteran.





HERE IS HIS RESPONSE WHEN HE BACKED OFF FROM HIS DECISION TO REQUIRE THE MILITARY PAY FOR THEIR WAR INJURIES.

Bad press, including major mockery of the play by comedian Jon Stewart, led to President Obama abandoning his proposal to require veterans carry private health insurance to cover the estimated $540 billion annual cost to
the federal government of treatment for injuries to military personnel received during their tours on active duty. The President admitted that he was puzzled by the magnitude of the opposition
to his proposal.



"Look, it's an all volunteer force," Obama complained. "Nobody made these guys go to war. They had to have known and accepted the risks. Now they whine about bearing the costs of their choice?
It doesn't compute.." "I thought these were people who were proud to sacrifice for their country, "Obama continued "I wasn't asking for blood, just money. With the country facing the worst financial crisis in its history, I'd have thought that the patriotic thing to do would be to try to help reduce the nation's deficit..
I guess I underestimated the selfishness of some of my fellow Americans."
Please pass this on to every one including every vet and their families whom you know. How in the world did a person with this Mindset become our leader?
REMEMBER THIS STATEMENT...."Nobody made these guys go to war. They had to have
known and accepted the risks. Now they whine about bearing the costs of their choice?"

If he thinks he will ever get another vote from an Active Duty,Reserve, National
Guard service member or veteran of a
military service he ought to think it over.. If you or a family member is or has served their country please pass this to
them.
Please pass this to everyone. I'm
guessing that, other than the 20-25 percent hardcore liberals in the US , citizens will agree that this is just another example why this is the worst president in American history. Remind everyone over and over how this man thinks, while he bows to the Saudi Arabian king...


Monday, September 3, 2012

23 million Americans can’t be wrong


By Rick Manning — The faces of Labor Day are different in 2012 than they have been in the past, all 23 million of them.
The traditional end of summer is greeted with cookouts, last splashes in the swimming pool, and final trips to the beach, but it is something much more in this election year.
Labor Day is a reminder of the unemployed, underemployed and those who don’t even bother looking for a job anymore because they don’t believe any are available.
Labor Day will also be a time when current and former Labor Secretaries come out from wherever they have been hiding, to talk about the nation’s employment situation.
This year, they can stay at home.  They are not needed.
Everyone knows the state of the nation’s labor force — wages are falling, work is hard to find, and prices are rising again at both the gas pumps and in the supermarkets.  Retirement plans for many in the labor force are delayed, and parents worry that their children will suffer a failure to launch due to an inability to find a job.
In fact, the unemployment rate over the past three years has only managed to stay slightly below the final three years of the Great Depression when the labor force is counted the same way.
Yet, ever persistent Obama Administration officials will infest television screens on Labor Day attempting to explain his “new normal” of 8.3 percent unemployment, blaming his predecessor and pretending that they hadn’t been in office for almost four years.
The same people who bashed previous Administrations for only creating jobs for “hamburger flippers” will tell America how not having a job is better than not having that one.
They also will attempt, for one more time before the election, to convince America that an economy that has only 37,000 more people employed today than when Obama took office is moving forward.
Think about that for a moment.
The civilian non-institutionalized population which consists of people over the age of 16 who are not in the military or incarcerated has increased by more than nine and a half million people since Obama took office, yet only 37,000 more people have a job today after four years of his policies.
If Americans care to watch these officials pontificate and gyrate through talking points, they will likely be watching with the same mindset as Ricky Ricardo used to have when he would say to Lucy, “You got some ‘splainin to do.”
Of course, the truth of the matter is that the only people who are likely to see and comment on Team Obama’s Labor Day media assault will either be those who already have their minds made up, or those who are paid to watch.
The rest of America will be enjoying the end of summer and hoping that next spring will bring change and renewed hope.

Sunday, September 2, 2012

Here’s a story about Mitt Romney that’s been fact checked.


“In July 1996, the 14-year-old daughter of Robert Gay, a partner at Bain Capital, had disappeared. She had attended a rave party in New York City and gotten high on ecstasy. Three days later, her distraught father had no idea where she was. Romney took immediate action. He closed down the entire firm and asked all 30 partners and employees to fly to New York to help find Gay’s daughter. Romney set up a command center at the LaGuardia Marriott and hired a private detective firm to assist with the search.

“He established a toll-free number for tips, coordinating the effort with the NYPD, and went through his Rolodex and called everyone Bain did business with in New York, and asked them to help find his friend’s missing daughter. Romney’s accountants at Price Waterhouse Cooper put up posters on street poles, while cashiers at a pharmacy owned by Bain put fliers in the bag of every shopper. Romney and the other Bain employees scoured every part of New York and talked with everyone they could – prostitutes, drug addicts – anyone.

“That day, their hunt made the evening news, which featured photos of the girl and the Bain employees searching for her. As a result, a teenage boy phoned in, asked if there was a reward, and then hung up abruptly. The NYPD traced the call to a home in New Jersey, where they found the girl in the basement, shivering and experiencing withdrawal symptoms from a massive ecstasy dose. Doctors later said the girl might not have survived another day. Romney’s former partner credits Mitt Romney with saving his daughter’s life, saying, ‘It was the most amazing thing, and I’ll never forget this to the day I die.’

“So, here’s my epiphany: Mitt Romney simply can’t help himself. He sees a problem, and his mind immediately sets to work solving it, sometimes consciously, and sometimes not-so-consciously. He doesn’t do it for self-aggrandizement, or for personal gain. He does it because that’s just how he’s wired.

“Many people are unaware of the fact that when Romney was asked by his old employer, Bill Bain, to come back to Bain & Company as CEO to rescue the firm from bankruptcy, Romney left Bain Capital to work at Bain & Company for an annual salary of one dollar.

When Romney went to the rescue of the 2002 Salt Lake Olympics, he accepted no salary for three years, and wouldn’t use an expense account.

He also accepted no salary as Governor of Massachusetts.

Character counts!! (and yes…that’s worth reading again!)”

This story reminds me of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29–37) in that he used his own funds to care for the man found on the road:

”A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.’

Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers’ hands? And he said, ‘The one who showed mercy toward him.’
Then Jesus said to him, ‘Go and do the same.’”