Saturday, June 16, 2012


Posted By Woody Pendleton


It’s Official: Presidency Now a Dictatorship

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store
Kurt Nimmo
June 15, 2012
Obama’s latest outrageous violation of the laws of the United States demonstrate that the nation has arrived at its destination: a dictatorship lorded over by an imperial ruler.
On Friday, Obama instructed the government to ignore an influx of illegal aliens streaming over the border. The move was implemented to sway Latino voters into the Obama camp in preparation for the upcoming election against fellow establishment candidate Mitt Romney.
Obama’s violations of law and the Constitution make his predecessor look like a piker by way of comparison. Since he was voted into office by deluded citizens who believed he would pay for their rent and food, Obama has enacted by fiat or worked with Congress to pass a number of bills that have increased the power of the executive and the unconstitutional authority of the federal government.
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
This monstrous statute allows the government to circumvent the Fifth Amendment. The NDAA gives the government the authority to designate American citizens as terrorists and indefinitely detain them without recourse to courts or due process of law and without specific charge.
“Permit me to state the obvious,” writes Sheldon Richman. “The government shouldn’t be allowed to imprison people indefinitely without charge or trial. It shouldn’t be necessary to say this nearly 800 years after Magna Carta was signed and over 200 years after the Fifth Amendment was ratified.”
Chapter 39 of the Magna Carta states that “[n]o free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” The concept of due process first appeared in English common law in 1354 and inspired the Fifth Amendment more than 400 years later.
The time honored principle that the state must try citizens in a court of law is now dead – and with surprisingly little resistance from our supposed representatives.
Unconstitutional wars
Not only did Obama continue and amplify Bush’s unconstitutional, illegal and immoral wars against nations that did not present a danger to the United States, he also initiated an overt war of his own in Libya (under NATO cover). He did not go to Congress and seek a declaration as required under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Instead, he used the fig leaf of the United Nations to cover his illegal action.
In May, the Secretary of War, Leon Panetta, said Obama will “seek international permission” to launch new wars.” He declared the “commander in chief has the authority to take action that involves the vital interests of this country” without consulting the American people.
In March, Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican, introduced H. Concurrent Resolution 107, which calls on the House, the Senate Concurring, to prevent Obama from starting another war without authorization from Congress. It has since languished in committee.
Obama’s health care mandate forcing Americans to buy insurance from large monopolistic corporations represents the height of his arrogance and contempt for the American people and the Constitution.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution is known as the Commerce Clause. It states that “Congress shall have the power… to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states and with the Indian tribes.” It does not permit the government to force you to buy insurance from a government preferred and protected monopoly.
In Federalist No. 45, James Madison wrote that the clause spells out that the powers delegated to the federal government are “few and defined,” while those left to the states “are numerous and indefinite,” although you wouldn’t know that if you listen to Democrats and far too many of their Republican colleagues.
The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to facilitate commerce between the states and prevent tariffs, quotas and taxes. It was not designed to help a lumbering and dictatorial federal government force “mandates” on the people at gunpoint.
Our supposed representatives are wholly ignorant of the Constitution and its unmistakable principles of limited government intervention. Rep. Nancy Pelosi made this clear when she was asked if the Constitution grants Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate.
“Are you serious?” she responded, demonstrating her complete ignorance of the Constitution.
Following legal challenges to the law and its consideration before the highest court, Obama threatened to cut off Medicare payments if the Supreme Court does not rule in his favor.
Obama has shown his contempt for the law, Congress, and the people by negotiating globalist treaties.
He would subvert the American judicial process by implementing the International Criminal Court. It will ultimately be used against American citizens. Professor Charles Rice of Notre Dame University Law School has stated that we will be confronted by “a monster” that effectively “repudiates the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence.”
The Law of the Sea Treaty will create another international bureaucracy that will limit the sovereignty of the United States and impose globalist regulations. “The autonomy of the United States is threatened if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted by an international body that is not accountable to the American people,” writes Julie Borowski. “The U.N. is openly hostile to our national sovereignty and republican form of government. The ratification of LOST [Law of the Sea Treaty] would open up a Pandora’s Box of problems. It would impose global taxes and regulations that cripple economic growth while exposing ourselves to high-stakes environmental lawsuits.”
The Small Arms Treaty would circumvent the Second Amendment, the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights. If ratified, it will impose even tougher licensing requirements, confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms, ban semiautomatic weapons, create an international gun registry, and override our cherished national sovereignty.
Startling details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership were revealed earlier this week in a leaked document. This treaty would allow transnational corporations to skirt American banking, investment, environmental and labor laws. The laws would still apply to corporations based in the United States, however. “The leaked document shows that in all of the major respects, this is exactly the same template that was used in NAFTA and other agreements that President Obama campaigned against,” Todd Tucker, the research director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch division, told Slate.
Flurry of Executive Orders
Although he lied and said he would not issue executive orders, Obama has signed a large number of them:
Council of Governors. “An Obama executive order that creates a council of state governors who will work with the feds to expand military involvement in domestic security, together with PDD 51, a Bush era executive order that gives the President dictatorial power in times of national emergency, eliminate the last roadblocks to declaring martial law in the United States,” Paul Joseph Watson summarized in January of 2010.
National Defense Resources Preparedness: This EO, signed in March of 2012, renews and updates Obama’s authority to seize control of all civil energy supplies, including oil and natural gas, and control and restrict all civil transportation. It essentially reaffirms a large number of FEMA-related executive orders issued since the national security state was installed in 1947 and is another element in an intricate structure that will enable martial law at the president’s discretion.
Less significant – although equally unconstitutional – executive orders include creating a council on bioethics, implementing a policy on space exploration, creating a mathematics advisory panel, and numerous other issues that should be addressed by Congress.
Advanced Effort to Kill the Constitution
From the Department of Justice’s high-handed attempt to prevent Arizona from protecting its borders to restrictive EPA rules that impose unreasonably burdensome financial costs on the states, Obama’s federal government has turned into a tyrannical leviathan dictating policy and law at gunpoint.
Since the reign of Bush, the federal government has shifted into high gear the effort to degrade and dilute the separation of powers. Obama was installed precisely to oversee the further destruction of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and empower the imperial presidency.
His latest move to further weaken the immigration laws of the United States is simply more evidence that the federal government will continue to run roughshod over the Constitution and the natural rights of the American people, an incremental plan implemented by the elite that is now approaching its zenith.


Posted By Woody Pendleton


The federal government has adopted a new rule providing more secrecy for its shadowy “fusion” centers, where investigators look at all sorts of private information that could impact administrative or criminal and civil “enforcement” actions.
The announcement comes from the Department of Homeland Security in a statement in the Federal Register.

It is being publicized by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, or EPIC, which had urged the government to back off its plan.
“The Department of Homeland Security issued a final rule exempting its Operations System from various Privacy Act safeguards, including provisions that permit individuals to access information about them held by the agency,” EPIC reported.
“The system ‘fuses’ information from many sources which the agency uses for investigatory purposes. There are over 20 categories of data, including Social Security numbers, citizenship, medical records and even information gathered from social media in the database.”
Big Brother? Read all about him, in “One Nation Under Surveillance.”
The DHS announcement noted that the exemption applies to its “Operations Collection, Planning, Coordination, Reporting, Analysis and Fusion System of Records,” which includes “electronic and paper records.”
The information is collected by the DHS “to service its several and varied missions and functions.”
Among the DHS procedures that will be aided, the federal agency said, are “the enforcement of civil and criminal laws; investigations, inquiries, and proceedings there under; national security and intelligence activists; and protection of the president of the U.S. or other individuals.”
The system “contains information that is collected by, on behalf of, in support of, or in cooperation with DHS and its components and may contain personally identifiable information collected by other federal, state, local, tribal, foreign, or international government agencies.”
DHS said the exemptions “are justified” because releasing information could “alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS.”
An exemption from a requirement that information be relevant and necessary is valid “because in the course of investigations into potential violations of federal law, the accuracy of information obtained or introduced occasionally may be unclear, or the information may not be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is appropriate to retain all information that may aid in establishing patterns of unlawful activity.”
The Federal Register statement is attributed to May Ellen Callahan, chief privacy officer for the DHS, working under Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.
In a statement submitted to DHS during its rule-adoption process, EPIC noted that the information DHS “seeks to incorporate into this system of records” includes name, date and place of birth, Society Security number, citizenship, contact information, address, physical description, distinguishing marks, automobile registration information, watch list information, medical records, financial information, results of intelligence analysis and reporting, ongoing law enforcement investigative information, historical law enforcement information, information systems security analysis and reporting, public source data, intelligence information including links to terrorism or law enforcement, information from federal and other agencies, other information provided by “individuals” and other categories of data.
Moreover, EPIC documents that the federal agency declares its own permission to share information with “both public and private parties,” ranging from the Department of Justice and any congressional office to any “agency … for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations,” as well as contractors, state and local agencies, foreign government intelligence agencies and even the news media.
The concept “contravenes the purpose and intent of the Federal Privacy Act,” EPIC wrote. “When it enacted the Privacy Act in 1974, Congress sought to restrict the amount of personal data that federal agencies could collect and requires government agencies to limit the collection, sharing, and use of individuals’ personal information.”
The organization said in 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court “underscored the importance of the Privacy Act’s restrictions upon agency use of personal data,” saying that in order “to protect the privacy of individuals identified in information systems maintained by federal agencies, it is necessary … to regulate the collection, maintenance, use and dissemination of information by such agencies.’”
EPIC said individuals should have access “to all disclosures of records kept about them.”
“The DHS insinuates that, if implemented, this requirement would ‘alert the subject of an actual or potential criminal civil or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS as well as the recipient agency.’
“Individuals should be able to know, after an investigation is completed or made public, the information stored about them … individuals may find themselves investigated due to malicious misinformation spread by bad actors.”
It continued, “The idea that information about an individual maintained in a federal agency system of records would never be made available to the individual because an investigation was ongoing in perpetuity would, of course, be absurd.”
The action, EPIC explained, stands “the purpose of the Privacy Act on its head, making personal information widely available across the government while preventing individuals from learning what information about them has been obtained or how it will be used.”
EPIC said, “By exempting this Fusion Center data from these Privacy Act provisions, DHS prevents individuals from requesting any information that the DHS may be keeping on them. This access requirement is crucial in any system that is to respect the rights of individuals; without meaningful access to the files kept on them, individuals have no recourse if inaccurate, incomplete, or fraudulent information about them is kept in the system.”
The organization warned specifically about “fusion centers,” saying they “are a uniquely invasive source of federal surveillance.”
It was one of those “fusion” centers, the Missouri Information Analysis Center, that in 2009 issued a report that linked conservative groups to domestic terrorism and warned law enforcement to watch for vehicles with bumper stickers promoting Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin. It also warned police to watch out for individuals with “radical” ideologies based on Christian views, such as opposing illegal immigration, abortion and federal taxes.
Ultimately, Chief James Keathley of the Missouri State Patrol said the release of the report caused him to review the procedures through which the report was released.
“My review of the procedures used by the MIAC in the three years since its inception indicates that the mechanism in place for oversight of reports needs improvement,” he said at the time. “Until two weeks ago, the process for release of reports from the MIAC to law enforcement officers around the state required no review by leaders of the Missouri State Highway Patrol or the Department of Public Safety.”
He said the report warning about those who hold Christian views was “created by a MIAC employee, reviewed by the MIAC director, and sent immediately to law enforcement agencies across Missouri.”
“The militia report was never reviewed by me or by the Director of Public Safety, John Britt, at any point prior to its issuance,” Keathley said. “Had that report been reviewed by either my office or by leaders of the Department of Public Safety, it would never have been released to law enforcement agencies.”

“This is what a dictator does”: Obama enacts DREAM Act without vote

Posted by BH

President Obama may have just made his most disturbing move yet. Forget the legislative process, he’s just granting immunity to illegal immigrants because he wants to. No Congress, no nothing. A cowardly act clearly designed to pander for votes – horrible. is reporting that the Obama Administration will stop deporting and start granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives. Writers note: Ironic that someone whose starting point of legality is “an illegal immigrant” would be capable of leading a “law-abiding life”- interesting logic.
The policy change, announced Friday by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, will affect as many as 800,000 immigrants who have lived in fear of deportation. It also bypasses Congress and partially achieves the goals of the so-called DREAM Act, a long-sought but never enacted plan to establish a path toward citizenship for young people who came to the United States illegally but who have attended college or served in the military.
On radio this morning, it’s safe to say that Glenn was less than pleased about this move from the Obama White House. He noted that the president isn’t trying to change the nation’s policies.
“He’s not trying to get this through Congress. He is just, in a breakthrough fashion, seizing power,” Glenn told listeners. “This is exactly what a dictator does, not an American president.  We are a constitutional republic.  They don’t do that.  He doesn’t have the ability.  The Department of Homeland Security doesn’t have the authority to do this.  Obama is now stopping all deportations for certain classes of illegal aliens.  Essentially he is going to put in place the DREAM Act without dealing with the hassles of debating it, voting it, discussing it.  He’s just doing it.”
The plan coming from this administration would make illegals who are currently under 30 and were brought to the United States before the age of 16 immune to deportation if they have been living in the country for at least 5 continuous years.
“So you have to be a consistent law breaker to get this benefit,” Stu commented.
“This is pandering on a scale this country has never seen before,” Glenn said, while explaining that President Obama has just seized power in dictator-like fashion to mobilize the Hispanic vote without spending a dime on Spanish radio and television.


Posted By WP


President Obama triggered a political and legal firestorm on Friday when he ordered a rule change through the Department of Homeland Security that allows young illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. and legally obtain work
permits. The policy was one the major components of the DREAM Act, which failed to clear Congress even under Democrat control.

The easing of the rule is aimed at illegals who were brought to the U.S. before they turned 16 years old and are currently younger than 30. The president says it’s unfair to to punish those young people for decisions their parents made and those young adults are already contributing to society.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, isn’t buying any of that. The Republican lawmaker is a member of the House Judiciary Committee and says the greatest outrage in this move is Obama’s ignoring of the Constitution. King says the president
can’t just create new laws through executive orders because he’s frustrated that his agenda can’t get through Congress.

“This man has refused to enforce immigration law, and now he issues an executive order that essentially institutes an amnesty program by executive order and I think this needs to go to the courtroom and I’m prepared to go there,” King told WND.
King adds that he’s ready to take the president to court for acting in a manner that is clearly reserved for the legislative branch. He has experience in this type of legal fight.
As an Iowa state senator, King successfully sued then-Gov. Tom Vilsack over what King sees as the same type of executive branch power grab.
“What the president is doing is ordering that his executive branch carry out a policy that is in direct violation of constitutionally and congressionally passed federal law,” said King.
The congressman says he isn’t concerned that what the president did may be similar to a reform plan being assembled by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio because the legislative process is where these things need to be hashed out.
King says he will press the legal challenge to the president’s move regardless of what GOP leaders do.


Posted By Woody Pendleton


The Minnesota food giant that brought to the nation’s parents, and especially their children, the Honey Nut Bee, Lucky the Leprechaun and the Silly Trix Rabbit now publicly is supporting homosexual marriage, leaving critics surprised at General Mills’ abandonment of traditional values families.
General Mills CEO Ken Powell announced this week at a Minneapolis homosexual pride event that his company opposes the marriage amendment on the Minnesota ballot in November.

Same-sex marriage is already illegal in Minnesota, but supporters of the traditional marriage initiative say that the constitutional amendment would keep marriage safe from activist courts and even legislators who may attempt to usurp state law.
Already there is a case in Hennepin County effectively putting the Minnesota Defense of Marriage Act on trial, and Minnesota pro-traditional marriage groups say that the November ballot measure is critical.
Supporters of traditional marriage say that General Mills couldn’t be more wrong in calling its support a business decision, but that is precisely how General Mills is voicing its opposition to the idea that state residents could define marriage for themselves.
“General Mills doesn’t normally take positions on ballot measures; this is a business issue that impacts our employees,” said Ken Charles, General Mills vice president of diversity.
“Minnesota voters will be asked to decide on a proposed constitutional amendment in November,” said Charles. “If passed, this amendment would define marriage in our home state’s constitution as being between one man and one woman, effectively banning same-sex marriage in Minnesota.”
He said the General Mills position against the traditional definition of marriage would help keep the company competitive. The pro-marriage initiative, he said, would make it harder for the Minnesota food producer to retain talented workers.
“If defeated, Minnesota voters would send a strong message about our state’s view of the importance of inclusiveness and diversity,” he said.
Charles spoke of the CEO’s comments at the “gay” pride event.
“He voiced our company’s opposition to the proposed marriage amendment, an initiative that makes our state less inclusive and reduces our company’s ability to attract and retain talent,” Charles said.
“I am proud to see our company join the ranks of local and national employers speaking out for inclusion,” he continued. “We do not believe the proposed constitutional amendment is in the best interests of our employees or our state economy – and as a Minnesota-based company we oppose it.”
Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, or NOM,said the General Mills position “will go down as one of the dumbest corporate PR stunts of all time.”
“Marriage as the union of one man and one woman is profoundly in the common good, and it is especially important for children,” Brown said. “General Mills makes billions marketing cereal to parents of young children. It has now effectively declared a war on marriage with its own customers when it tells the country that it is opposed to preserving traditional marriage, which is what the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment does.”
NOM points out U.S. Census Bureau data indicating that there are just over 100,000 same-sex households in America with children under the age of 18. The group contrasts that with the over 35 million traditional American households with children under 18.
“It’s ludicrous for a big corporation to intentionally inject themselves into a divisive social issue like gay marriage,” said Brown. “It’s particularly dumb for a corporation that makes billions selling cereal to the very people they just opposed.”
NOM recently sent a letter to Minnesota’s 50 biggest corporations urging “neutrality” regarding the November ballot measure.
“Gay” activist groups claim that there is no such thing as neutrality, however, with one group recently blogging, “A policy of neutrality is a policy of invisibility, disregard, and shame.”
The blogger calls on companies like General Mills to embrace the LGBT community and “do what’s right for their profits.”
But Minnesotans for Marriage, a broad coalition of supporters of the Minnesota marriage amendment, sharply criticized General Mill’s outspoken opposition to traditional marriage.
In a statement, marriage coalition chairman John Helmberger said it’s “very disappointing that General Mills has decided to play PC politics by pandering to a small but powerful interest group that is bent on redefining marriage, the core institution of society.”
“[The General Mills position] thrust the company into a war against marriage that goes against the beliefs of an overwhelming majority of their customers and the best interest of their shareholders,” he continued.
“Marriage is more than a commitment between two people who love each other. It was created by God for the care and well-being of the next generation. The amendment is about preserving marriage and making sure that voters always remain in control over the definition of marriage in our state, and not activist judges or politicians.”
Helmberger said that by taking its position, General Mills is saying to Minnesotans and people all around the globe that marriage doesn’t matter to them.
“Marriage is in the interest of children, because it is society’s best way to help children experience the ideal environment where they are raised by their mother and father,” he said. “It’s ironic and regrettable that a corporation that makes billions marketing cereal to parents of children would take the position that marriage should be redefined.”
Minnesotans for Marriage points to studies indicating a strong correlation between a society’s support for traditional marriage and the health of its economy.
One report titled “The Sustainable Demographic Dividend,” written by the Social Trends Institute, says its research “suggests that large sectors of the modern economy are more likely to flourish when men and women marry and have children.”
“So companies in these sectors – from Bayer to Nestlé to Procter & Gamble to Wal-Mart – could and should do more to use their advertising and philanthropic dollars to strengthen families the world over and so – indirectly – their future bottom line.”
The report said the “bottom-line message of ‘The Sustainable Demographic Dividend’ is that business, government, civil society, and ordinary citizens would do well to strengthen the family – in part because the wealth of nations, and the performance of large sectors of the modern economy, is tied to the fortunes of the family.”
Supporters of traditional marriage have been victorious in each of the nearly three dozen states where a definition of marriage was put on the ballot.
Minnesotans for Marriage points to the Social Trends Institute study as a reminder to corporate giants of where their profits lie.
“In recent decades, numerous corporations have supported initiatives to help sustain the physical environment. Now it’s time for companies to be similarly attentive to the sustainability of the family, an institution that socializes and supplies not only future workers but current and future customers,” the group said.
“Corporate profits in industries whose fortunes are linked to the health of the family – from grocery chains to insurance companies – are likely to perform particularly well when families are strong.
“Companies in these industries should take the lead in doing all they can to increase the odds that, among adults, love is followed by marriage and the baby carriage.”

2012 Tea Party Election? - It's Not The Presidency

Posted by BH

2012 Tea Party Election? -
It's Not The Presidency

By Steve King

The election of 2010 was a most outstanding event in our Nation's History. Not in my lifetime, at least, had a grassroots movement changed the political landscape like the Tea Party did that year. 

 The Establishment of the Republican Party was given the proverbial boot as the GOP took control of the US House and nearly took the US Senate. In fact, had Tea Party Infiltrator Sarah Palin not gone into some of the States where there was strong support for the Tea Party Senatorial Candidate, and campaigned for the Establishment Senatorial Candidate instead, those states probably would have won those seats for the GOP and taken control of the Senate. Also, that year, Voter Fraud had risen to its highest level ever and, among other races had, no doubt, been a contributing factor in Harry UnAmerican Reid's win.

Read Devvy Kid's latest article on Vote Fraud:

In spite of  this, the influence of the Tea Party on the 2010 election scared the New World Order (NWO) Money Lords to the point that they won't let it happen again; we can't take 


Friday, June 15, 2012


Posted By Woody Pendleton


$4 Trillion in Bailout Money for Federal Reserve Bankers’ Banks

Written by Gary North on June 15, 2012
Print Friendly
Senator Bernie Sanders has released the names of 18 bankers who have served as board members of regional Federal Reserve Banks (private) and whose banks collected $4 trillion in low-interest loans from the Federal Reserve System. The list is here.
Sanders has revealed the following.
More than $4 trillion in near zero-interest Federal Reserve loans and other financial assistance went to the banks and businesses of at least 18 current and former Federal Reserve regional bank directors in the aftermath of the 2008 financial collapse, according to Government Accountability Office records made public for the first time today by Sen. Bernie Sanders.
On the eve of Senate testimony by JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, Sanders (I-Vt.) released the detailed findings on Dimon and other Fed board members whose banks and businesses benefited from Fed actions.
“This report reveals the inherent conflicts of interest that exist at the Federal Reserve. At a time when small businesses could not get affordable loans to create jobs, the Fed was providing trillions in secret loans to some of the largest banks and corporations in America that were well represented on the boards of the Federal Reserve Banks. These conflicts must end,” Sanders said.
The GAO study found that allowing members of the banking industry to both elect and serve on the Federal Reserve’s board of directors creates “an appearance of a conflict of interest” and poses “reputational risks” to the Federal Reserve System.
In Dimon’s case, JPMorgan received some $391 billion of the $4 trillion in emergency Fed funds at the same time his bank was used by the Fed as a clearinghouse for emergency lending programs. In March of 2008, the Fed provided JPMorgan with $29 billion in financing to acquire Bear Stearns. Dimon also got the Fed to provide JPMorgan Chase with an 18-month exemption from risk-based leverage and capital requirements. And he convinced the Fed to take risky mortgage-related assets off of Bear Stearns balance sheet before JP Morgan Chase acquired the troubled investment bank.
Another high-profile conflict involved Stephen Friedman, the former chairman of the New York Fed’s board of directors. Late in 2008, the New York Fed approved an application from Goldman Sachs to become a bank holding company giving it access to cheap loans from the Federal Reserve. During that period, Friedman sat on the Goldman Sachs board. He also owned Goldman stock, something that was prohibited by Federal Reserve conflict of interest regulations. Although it was not publicly disclosed at the time, Friedman received a waiver from the Fed’s conflict of interest rules in late 2008. Unbeknownst to the Fed, Friedman continued to purchase shares in Goldman from November 2008 through January of 2009, according to the GAO.
In another case, General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt was a New York Fed board member at the same time GE helped create a Commercial Paper Funding Facility during the financial crisis. The Fed later provided $16 billion in financing to GE under this emergency lending program.
Continue Reading on


Posted By WP


$970 Billion Bailout Bill Passes a Key Senate Committee. Congress Will Vote for It. Obama Will Sign It.

Written by Gary North on June 15, 2012
Print Friendly
When the U.S. government passes a bailout bill worth close to $1 trillion, you might think this would be front-page news. It isn’t.
You might think Republicans would be fighting it. They aren’t.
Why not? Becquse it’s that old favortite, agribusiness.
In the name of helping the small farmer, the agrigribusiness industry lives high on the hog. It lives on the federal tit.
This will never change until the Great Default.
The bill covers five years, so it’s really a “mere” $194 billion a year.
It covers food stamps. It covers crop insurance: zero-risk pricing of crops. It’s pork. Literally.
The promoter of this system of government-subsidized agriculture is being hyped by the Senate Agriculture Committee is a “new, improved” system of facism. (Fascism is what it is: the alliance between big busibess and big government.
Supposedly, it’s much more free market today. The Chairwoman of the committee proclaims: “The Farm Bill before us today makes major reforms. We are cutting subsidies. We are ending direct payments. We cut the deficit by over $23 billion.”
It’s pure pork. It’s Crisco for agribusiness.
The senior Republican on the Agriculture Committee insists: “They’re real cuts. They are real deficit savings.”
Right. Count $970 billion in bailout money as savings. I believe!
This has been going on since Roosevelt’s New Deal. It will not change. We do not have a free market in agriculture. We have a fascist system. The voters do not care. The farmers pretend they are not wards of the state. The voters pretend that they are not subsidizing inefficiency. They also do not understand that they pay more for food because of this fascist system.
Everyone is just fine with the arrangement. No one pays any attention.
The Senate bill is likely to be larded by the House of Representatives.
Then Obama will sign it. It’s an election year. He does not want to lose the farm bloc vote. It is made up mostly of urban residents in farm states who overpay at the supermarket for food.


Posted By WP


“Phone Stamps”: Food Stamps Now Come With Free Phones

Written by Gary North on June 15, 2012

Print Friendly
The food stamp program is in fact a food card program. To keep things efficient (and anonymous), welfare clients are issued their own debit cards for food. The stores get the digital money instantly.
This is now costing taxpayers $75 billion a year.
But add to this another $2 billion. Why? Because people on the food card program are eligible to have a free cell phone.
The general public does not know this. But even if they did, they would not protest. The voters are so completely guilt-manipulated that they will not protest, no matter how big the welfare state gets. We are way beyond the point of no return. The bills keep rising.
The federal government’s free cell phone program is called Lifeline. You are eligible is you get Medicaid, food cards, Head Start, and other federal programs.
Think of Lifeline as “phone stamps.”
It has been around for over 25 years.
You pay for it: the “Universal Service Charge” that is added to your phone bill.
Since 2000, the program has been booming.
In 2008, there were about 7 million participants. In 2009, this went to 8.6 million. That year, payments went over $1 billion. It is now growing fast. It’s around $2 billion now.
About 10% of the phone stamp people are ineligible. In some states, it’s twice this: Alabama, New Hampshire, and West Virginia.
The FCC is considering upgrading the free phones to smartphones.
Tagged with


Posted By Woody Pendleton


Parents Furious After School Teaches Graphic Sex Class

Parents Furious After School Teaches Graphic Sex Class
Jun 14, 2012
By Todd Starnes
Parents in a small Washington State community are infuriated after their 11-year-old children were given graphic descriptions of oral and anal sex during a sex education class led by an elementary school principal.

Fifth-graders at Onalaska Elementary School were supposed to get a lesson about HIV-AIDS, but the class discussion turned graphic when a child asked about other forms of sexual activity. The principal, who happened to be teaching the class, then told the children about oral and anal sex.
“I’m one pissed off cowboy,” parent James Gilliand told Fox News Radio. “I didn’t appreciate them teaching my daughter – who is innocent of that – at all.”
Gilliland and his wife, Kadra, were among the moms and dads in Onalaska, about 73 miles south of Tacoma, demanding answers from their local school system – and so far – they are still waiting.
“I was just shocked because I trusted my little country school,” Kadra Gilliland told Fox News Radio. “I didn’t think they were going to talk about such things. I trusted by school – that’s the bottom line and they crossed the line.”
School officials did not return calls seeking comment.
However, Superintendent Scott Fenter defended the principal’s action to local media and said that the lesson did not go too far.
“I think the principal handled it appropriately at the time; she only gave factual information, no demonstrations,” Fenter told “Because in sixth grade they start becoming sexually aware and you’ve got to teach them ahead of time.”
In an interview with Seattle’s Q-13 Fox News, Fenter said the lessons came from “state-adopted curriculum.”
“In reality, she stuck to the curriculum,” he told Seattle’s Q-13 Fox News. “It’s pretty difficult to talk about STDs or sexually transmitted diseases without explaining what that is, or how it’s transmitted.”
Since 1988 Washington State has required some sort of sex education starting in the fifth grade.
“Kids leaving 5th grade and moving into middle school start getting exposed to a lot more information, and we know that`s the age where many children start to become sexually active, unfortunately,” Fenter told the Fox affiliate. “And that`s a scary thought, (but) that`s the truth.”
Parent Curtis Pannkuk said if that’s the case – the curriculum needs to be changed.
“One of the other parents said it well – they raped the minds of the ten year old, eleven year old kids,” he told Fox News Radio. “Children were traumatized.”
The Pannkuk and Gilliland families said they knew something was wrong when the daughters came home from school. They were quiet and withdrawn.
“You could tell she was embarrassed,” Jean Pannkuk told Fox News Radio. “She didn’t want to have to repeat what had been said. It was really sad to see her struggle with feeling like she was responsible.”
Pannkuk and her husband sat their daughter down and asked her explain what she was taught in the class.
“You take a man’s penis and you put it in your mouth – that’s what the girls do to the boys,” their daughter told the couple. “The boys spread the girls legs apart and put their mouths down on the vaginas.”
Pannkuk said he became enraged as his 11-year-old daughter recounted what the principal had told the classroom.
“Steam was coming out my ears,” he said. “I was very, very upset. I understand that they need to teach these kids sex education – but 11-year-olds? I have a problem with that. The wife and I were very – very upset.”
Gilliland said another child explained to their parents that it “was basically like a lollipop.”
“There are a lot of pissed off parents besides this pissed-off cowboy,” he said. “I’ve been told they’re getting sexually active, younger and younger – maybe in the city – but not here in the country.”
But Supt. Fenter told Seattle’s Fox affiliate that parents were sent a notice informing them about the program – and that they had a right to review the curriculum. But he said, only three parents showed up.
Mrs. Pannkuk said she was aware of the class “but I didn’t know it was going to be that explicit.”
Gilliland said he has no problem teaching sex education – but this particular class went too far.
“It’s one thing to teach about reproduction,” he said. ‘She knows about breeding her guinea pigs, horses, dogs and so on. She knows how babies are born and how they are created, but when they go teaching them these extra acts – it’s appalling.”
Mrs. Gilliland said it’s important for parents across the nation to get involved and to pay attention.
“Be more involved in your school,” she said. “See what your kids are learning. Pay attention. Talk to your kids.”
She said many of the families are now dealing with the aftermath of the class.
“She should be bouncing on the trampoline, riding horses – doing normal kid stuff,” she said of her daughter. “We don’t need to talk about that stuff at that age.
But now they do.
“The damage is done,” Pannkuk said.


Posted By WP


Among the many strange creatures found in the Australian outback is one called the Frilled-Necked Lizard. He has this umbrella-like structure around his neck which, when threatened, he splays out in an effort to look larger to his adversaries. To complete the effect, his skin grows darker in color; he opens his mouth widely and emits a loud hissing sound while rocking back and forth on his hind legs.

It’s quite a sight, and it does make him appear somewhat menacing. The problem is, it’s all for show. If a potential foe makes even a faint move toward him, this guy turns and runs away like his head’s on fire. Despite his warrior-like appearance, he is actually more of a song-and-dance-man. It is a trait that makes him the obvious candidate to replace the elephant as the symbol of the Republican Party. After all, elephants are noble animals who will take on a pride of lions to protect their young, and no one can even remotely suggest this is true about the GOP.
With that, we come to the primary arena where Republicans display their cowardice. It is in the battle over abortion, and right now, a textbook example of this being played out in Ohio. As you read this column, a groundbreaking piece of pro-life legislation called the “Heartbeat Bill” is being intentionally bottled up in legislative maneuvering by gutless Republican legislators who call themselves pro-life.
Naturally, these people are able to regurgitate a lot of meaningless drivel to justify their treason, but the bottom line is that they seem to be comfortable doing nothing while millions of unborn babies have their arms and legs ripped off, their chests crushed and their skulls collapsed. Apparently, like the goons down at Planned Parenthood, Ohio’s Frilled-Neck-Republicans are willing to just write these children off.
I must caution you, however, not to conclude that this sort of scandal is unique to Ohio. In the pro-life movement’s race to our inevitable victory, overcoming the damage done by faux-life politicians is a hurdle we have had to leap before and will have to leap again, in every state of the Union.
Let’s cut to the chase. As much as the GOP’s gated-community quislings might prefer that confrontation over abortion be conducted like some ivory-tower debate between people in plaid smoking jackets with elbow patches, it is not going to happen. This has always been, and will always be, the political equivalent of a brawl in a waterfront bar.
Regrettably, most Republicans give off the aura of a bunch of guys whose mamas used to dress them for college. As part of some fraternity hazing ritual, they might find themselves sitting in a waterfront bar trying to look like they belong. But the only thing you can be certain of is that, when the first punch is thrown, the next sound you’re going to hear is the rapid pitter-patter of fine leather wing-tips stampeding out the door.
Another problem is that Republican lawmakers have about as much practical use for the abortion issue as a fish has for a bicycle. That’s because these guys are motivated by money and votes that the unborn don’t have. In addition, they always seem to get a little queasy whenever the abortion issue is mentioned. To an even casual observer, it is clear that they have about the same opinion of the pro-life movement that they would have about the cockroach they step on during a middle-of-the-night trip to the toilet.
In short, this is a fight for which Republicans have no stomach. On the other hand, it is exactly the kind of fight their opponents relish. It is hardly a secret that, since the 1960s, the once-proud Democratic Party has devolved into a snake pit of perverted social agendas pushed by amoral leftists who will wallow in the filthiest cesspool to get what they want. And that scares most Republicans to death.
In the final analysis, the Democrats are almost always wrong on moral issues and will fight to the death for them, while the Republicans are generally right on moral issues but don’t care about them. The result is that, in the cultural civil war currently being waged for the soul and future of our country, the political battle often comes down to a contest between those who lack character and those who lack courage.
If you need proof, just do an internet search and type in: Ohio, the Heartbeat Bill.


Posted By Woody Pendleton


Who is the White House Mole?

  |   Printer Friendly

There has been a series of leaks of classified information from the White House in an effort to portray President Obama as a tough American foreign policy leader, but no official has resigned from the administration or the Obama campaign in disgrace or protest. This suggests the betrayal of state secrets is being condoned or ignored at the highest levels. Not surprisingly, Eric Holder’s Department of Justice is resisting the appointment of a special or outside counsel to probe the scandal.
If it is so easy to turn over national security information to the media, it may be just as easy to turn the state secrets directly over to the enemy. Either way, our adversaries benefit.
Starting with Obama and then moving through Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and on to campaign adviser David Axelrod, we have individuals who could not pass a basic FBI background check.
Obama says, “The notion that my White House would purposely release classified national security information is offensive. It’s wrong.” This is from the candidate who concealed the identity of his communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, in his book, Dreams from My Father. Such a cover-up should have disqualified Obama from the office of the presidency.
The connection to Davis has never been investigated by the major media, let alone Congress. For their part, Republicans are afraid of being called racist McCarthyites if they challenge Obama’s allegiance to the United States and raise questions about his communist connections and Islamic upbringing.
In a roundabout way to get at the truth, Republicans are pleading for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the damage that has been done by the leaks. Holder thumbs his nose at them. Even if they get their special counsel, the damage is done and the results won’t be available until probably next year, after the elections.
Congress is part of the problem and got us into this mess to begin with.
Congress gave Panetta a pass when he became CIA director and then Secretary of Defense, despite his long record of associations with identified communist Hugh DeLacy, who had connections to the Chinese government. Not surprisingly, the Soros-funded Media Matters came to Panetta’s defense, accusing conservatives of a “smear” for raising the inconvenient facts about his record, including opposition to President Reagan’s anti-communist defense policies. Media Matters has White House connections and specializes in intimidating the media when they dare to question the White House line.
Fortunately, the facts, including some of a personal nature, were included in a column by the courageous Diana West, who commented that the evidence showed that Panetta had “a cordial, long-term relationship in the 1970s and 1980s” with Hugh DeLacy, a Communist Party USA member elected to one term in Congress while pretending to be a Democrat in 1944. Incriminating “Dear Hugh” and “Dear Leon” documents were obtained by researcher Trevor Loudon at the University of Washington.
West went on, “DeLacy later co-founded the communist-penetrated Progressive Party that nominated Henry Wallace for president in 1948. By the 1970s, DeLacy was still politically active, with connections to known Soviet agents including Victor Perlo of the infamous Perlo spy group, and Frank Coe and Solomon Adler of the equally infamous Silvermaster spy group. DeLacy is also associated with suspected Soviet agent John Stewart Service of the ‘Amerasia’ spy case.”
She noted that “DeLacy was of sufficient interest to Communist China to have scored a paid junket to the People’s Republic in 1974,” and there “met up with Service, Coe and Adler, who was then thought to be working for Chinese intelligence.”
“Our legislative branch is falling asleep on the job over stories that should be giving them—and us—night sweats,” West said, in a column titled, “Give Panetta the Pinko Slip.” But Republican senators—some of the same people now expressing outrage over leaks—put on their blinders.  They didn’t want the public to notice them dozing off.
Another suspicious Obama associate, David Axelrod, is a former Chicago Tribune reporter who became Obama’s chief strategist and appears regularly on television as the face of the campaign. He once worked closely with David Simon Canter, a communist operative investigated by Congress as an agent of the Soviet Union. Axelrod was “within the extreme orbit of the old Chicago CPUSA [Communist Party] apparatus,” writes Professor Paul Kengor, author of a forthcoming book on Frank Marshall Davis and his Chicago and Hawaii networks.
Axelrod, who reportedly attended some counterterrorism meetings in the White House Situation Room, insists that the White House didn’t leak the national security information to the Times. With a straight face, he told ABC News that “the authors of all of this work”—The New York Times reporters—have made that assurance.
We see the damage being done, as Obama tries to look like an international tough guy in order to be re-elected. In addition to the leaks to The New York Times about U.S. policy toward Iran and al-Qaeda, producers of a film about the killing of Osama bin Laden, to be released before the November 6 presidential election, were given classified briefings at the Pentagon. Panetta denies anything improper was done, but Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has released emails from the CIA and Pentagon showing “unprecedented and potentially dangerous collaboration” between top Administration officials and the filmmakers. Judicial Watch obtained the documents.
King, however, runs the House Homeland Security Committee, with jurisdiction over the Islamic threat. What Congress needs, in order to get to the bottom of the scandal, are internal security committees or subcommittees in both houses. They were all abolished by congressional liberals in the 1970s.
It seems as though Republicans can’t come to grips with the nature of the problem that faces them and the country. A conservative attorney who has been probing into the backgrounds of Obama and his associates tells the story of attending a speech by Republican Rudolph Giuliani in 2011 and asking the former New York City mayor if he had ever considered the possibility that Obama was a mole. “What? A mole? God, I hope not,” was the response.
It is a serious charge to make, let alone mention in a printed piece such as this. Yet, the new book by retired U.S. intelligence analyst Christina Shelton, Alger Hiss: Why He Chose Treason, is a reminder of how and why questionable individuals get into positions of extraordinary power. Hiss was a founder of the United Nations because of his position as a high State Department official. He might have become Secretary of State, were it not for the revelations of communist defector Whittaker Chambers. A video on the website of Shelton’s book includes interesting information from the author about Hiss’s communist motivations.
It is significant that Anthony Lake, an adviser to and fundraiser for then-presidential candidate Obama in 2008, had previously withdrawn his nomination as Bill Clinton’s CIA director when outrage developed over his public doubts about Hiss’s guilt. That didn’t bother Obama, who took Lake’s advice and fundraising help and then gave him a job at the United Nations. A video shows Lake taking his oath of office as an “international civil servant of the United Nations.” The U.N. is notorious as a nest of spies.
Panetta’s background as a former member of Congress helped to make his confirmation process easy and fast. It worked. Now, Republican senators are reluctant to admit they made a mistake, as Panetta skillfully fends off charges that the Pentagon and the CIA released the secret information about the bin Laden raid to the pro-Obama filmmakers.
Conducting “bipartisan” investigations with the Democrats will not get the job done. Obama, whose foreign policy approval ratings are already better than Romney’s, is sitting pretty and laughing behind-the-scenes at the GOP. Our national security crumbles before our eyes, making the nation more vulnerable to what in the corporate world would be termed a “hostile takeover.”  The catch is that it is a takeover from within.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...