DAVID BARTON UNDER ATTTACK FROM THE SPLA AND RIGHT

Posted by BH

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

Kill ‘All White’ Men, Women, Babies, Blind, Cripple, Fa**ots, Lesbians & Old Crackers, Says New Black Panthers Vile Radio Opening; Then ‘Dig ’Em Up’ & ‘Kill ’Em Again’

Posted by HS

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

~~~

After news broke Wednesday of the New Black Panthers calling for the killing of white babies (see that here), more shocking audio from the group’s radio program has now surfaced. In the organization’s radio opening for August 13, they play a shocking segment from Khalid Muhammad, a former spokesman for Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam. In it, he advocates extreme violence against white people in general, and specifically gays, lesbians, babies, and women:

We give them 24 hours in South Africa to get out of town by sundown. I say, if they don’t get out of town, we kill the men, we kill the women, we kill the children, we kill the babies, we kill the blind, we kill the cripple, we kill the crazy, we kill the fa**ots, we kill the lesbians, I say god dammit we kill them all.
If they are white kill ‘em all. Why kill the women? Why kill the babies? They are just innocent blue-eyed babies? Because god dammit they are going to grow up one day to rule your babies. Kill them now. Why kill the women in South Africa? I say kill the women because the women are the military manufacturing center. And every nine months they lay down on their backs and reinforcement rolls out from between their legs, so shut down the military manufacturing center by killing the white woman.”
Why kill the older crackers? The old crippled crackers in South Africa. How in the hell you think they got old? They got old oppressing and killing black people [inaudible].
Kill ‘em all. Kill the fa**ot. Kill the lesbian. And after you’ve killed them all […] I say then you go to the god damn grave, and dig ‘em up, and then kill ‘em a-god-damn gain because they didn’t die hard enough.

You can see a longer version of the speech below:

Discoverthenetworks.com has more on Muhammad, who was killed in 2001. Regarding the speech, it was delivered at Kean College in 1993 and gained him notoriety because of how graphic it was:

CLICK BELOW TO READ MORE

Posted by WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

The Israeli Crisis

• 
• George Friedman
  

Crises are normally short, sharp and intense affairs. Israel's predicament has developed on a different time frame, is more diffuse than most crises and has not reached a decisive and intense moment. But it is still a crisis. It is not a crisis solely about Iran, although the Israeli government focuses on that issue. Rather, it is over Israel's strategic reality since 1978, when it signed the Camp David accords with Egypt.
Perhaps the deepest aspect of the crisis is that Israel has no internal consensus on whether it is in fact a crisis, or if so, what the crisis is about. The Israeli government speaks of an existential threat from Iranian nuclear weapons. I would argue that the existential threat is broader and deeper, part of it very new, and part of it embedded in the founding of Israel.

---

---

Israel now finds itself in a long-term crisis in which it is struggling to develop a strategy and foreign policy to deal with a new reality. This is causing substantial internal stress, since the domestic consensus on Israeli policy is fragmenting at the same time that the strategic reality is shifting. Though this happens periodically to nations, Israel sees itself in a weak position in the long run due to its size and population, despite its current military superiority. More precisely, it sees the evolution of events over time potentially undermining that military reality, and it therefore feels pressured to act to preserve it. How to preserve its superiority in the context of the emerging strategic reality is the core of the Israeli crisis.

Egypt

Since 1978, Israel's strategic reality had been that it faced no threat of a full peripheral war. After Camp David, the buffer of the Sinai Peninsula separated Egypt and Israel, and Egypt had a government that did not want that arrangement to break. Israel still faced a formally hostile Syria. Syria had invaded Lebanon in 1976 to crush the Palestine Liberation Organization based there and reconsolidate its hold over Lebanon, but knew it could not attack Israel by itself. Syria remained content reaching informal understandings with Israel. Meanwhile, relatively weak and isolated Jordan depended on Israel for its national security. Lebanon alone was unstable. Israel periodically intervened there, not very successfully, but not at very high cost.
The most important of Israel's neighbors, Egypt, is now moving on an uncertain course. This weekend, new Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi removed five key leaders of the military and the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and revoked constitutional amendments introduced by the military. There are two theories on what has happened. In the first, Morsi -- who until his election was a senior leader of the country's mainstream Islamist movement, the Muslim Brotherhood -- is actually much more powerful than the military and is acting decisively to transform the Egyptian political system. In the second, this is all part of an agreement between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood that gives Morsi the appearance of greater power while actually leaving power with the military.
On the whole, I tend to think that the second is the case. Still, it is not clear how this will evolve: The appearance of power can turn into the reality of power. Despite any sub rosa agreements between the military and Morsi, how these might play out in a year or two as the public increasingly perceives Morsi as being in charge -- limiting the military's options and cementing Morsi's power -- is unknown. In the same sense, Morsi has been supportive of security measures taken by the military against militant Islamists, as was seen in the past week's operations in the Sinai Peninsula.
The Sinai remains a buffer zone against major military forces, but not against the paramilitaries linked to radical Islamists who have increased their activities in the peninsula since the fall of former President Hosni Mubarak in February 2011. Last week, they attacked an Egyptian military post on the Gaza border, killing 16 Egyptian soldiers. This followed several attacks against Israeli border crossings. Morsi condemned the attack and ordered a large-scale military crackdown in the Sinai. Two problems could arise from this.
First, the Egyptians' ability to defeat the militant Islamists depends on redefining the Camp David accords, at least informally, to allow Egypt to deploy substantial forces there (though even this might not suffice). These additional military forces might not threaten Israel immediately, but setting a precedent for a greater Egyptian military presence in the Sinai Peninsula could eventually lead to a threat.
This would be particularly true if Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood impose their will on the Egyptian military. If we take Morsi at face value as a moderate, the question becomes who will succeed him. The Muslim Brotherhood is clearly ascendant, and the possibility that a secular democracy would emerge from the Egyptian uprising is unlikely. It is also clear that the Muslim Brotherhood is a movement with many competing factions. And it is clear from the elections that the Muslim Brotherhood represents the most popular movement in Egypt and that no one can predict how it will evolve or which factions will dominate and what new tendencies will arise. Egypt in the coming years will not resemble Egypt of the past generation, and that means that the Israeli calculus for what will happen on its southern front will need to take Hamas in Gaza into account and perhaps an Islamist Egypt prepared to ally with Hamas.
 CLICK BELOW TO READ MORE

Posted by WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

Death Rites and Speech Rights

• 
• Jacob Sullum
  

Aug 15, 2012

On June 21, 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Texas law that made flag burning a state crime, ruling that it violated the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. A month later, Rep. Jack Brooks, D-Texas introduced a bill that made flag burning a federal crime. Approved by Congress that fall, the new law was overturned by the Supreme Court the following year.

The Sanctity of Eternal Rest for Veterans Act, signed into law by President Obama last week, seems destined for the same fate. The law, which prohibits protests within 300 feet of a military funeral from two hours before the ceremony until two hours afterward, represents the same sort of willful constitutional defiance as the short-lived federal ban on flag burning, sacrificing liberty in an ostentatious display of patriotism.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, introduced the ban on funeral protests a month after the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment barred the father of Matthew Snyder, a Marine killed in Iraq, from obtaining damages for the emotional distress that the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church caused by picketing on public property near the Westminster, Md., church where Snyder's memorial service was held in 2006.

"Any distress occasioned by Westboro's picketing," Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the eight-justice majority, "turned on the content and viewpoint of the message conveyed, rather than any interference with the funeral itself."

Westboro's message -- that God is killing Americans out of anger over our tolerance of homosexuality -- is morally absurd, and its tactics, using tragedies such as Matthew Snyder's death to generate publicity for its hateful harangues, are deliberately outrageous.
The church, which consists mostly of its pastor, Fred Phelps, and his family, has been picketing funerals for more than two decades, holding up signs with slogans such as "God Hates Fags," "God Blew up the Soldier," "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "Thank God for 9/11" and "AIDS Cures Fags." Westboro's illustrations of God's wrath include not just dead soldiers but police officers, firefighters, victims of natural disasters and even little girls murdered by deranged gunmen. The Phelpses proudly call themselves "the most hated family in the U.S."
But as Chief Justice Roberts observed, the First Amendment is necessary to protect controversial speech in particular, since that's the only sort of speech people seek to suppress. Although Roberts did say that protests such as Westboro's are "subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions," the Court's precedents suggest the newly enacted restrictions do not qualify as reasonable.
In 1994, the Court rejected several restrictions that a Florida court had imposed on anti-abortion protesters, including bans on approaching patients within 300 feet of an abortion clinic and on picketing within 300 feet of a clinic employee's home. Three years later, reviewing a federal injunction, it overturned a 15-foot floating buffer zone around cars and people heading to and from abortion clinics.
If these restrictions were unjustifiably broad, it is hard to see how the newly established 300-foot buffer zone, especially when combined with the two-hour exclusion before and after funerals, can pass muster.
In a 2008 North Carolina Law Review article, University of Missouri law professor Christina Wells noted that state restrictions on funeral protests (also prompted by Westboro's activities) "go far beyond" preventing disruption of funerals, seeking to "protect mourners from offensive rather than intrusive protests." She argued that the laws, some of which have been ruled unconstitutional by federal judges, aim to defend a "civility-based privacy interest" that has no basis in American law.
That notion is reflected in the new federal law, which applies to any protest that "tends to disturb the peace or good order" of a military funeral -- language that encompasses quiet, nonintrusive demonstrations with messages that offend passers-by. That's just the sort of speech the First Amendment is supposed to protect. The despicable Phelpses revel in their notoriety. Why feed their sense of self-importance by making them into First Amendment martyrs?

OBAMA'S IRONIC LIE ABOUT AN AMERICAN ICIN

Posted by WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER   WFZR/TV

Obama's Ironic Lie About an American Icon

• 
• Terry Jeffrey
  

Aug 15, 2012

To justify expanding the power of the federal government and increasing the burden of debt on federal taxpayers, President Barack Obama has repeatedly lied about a peerless icon of America's pioneering spirit -- the Golden Gate Bridge.
"During the Great Depression, America built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge," Obama said in his January State of the Union Address. "After World War II, we connected our states with a system of highways. Democratic and Republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today."

Obama suggested here that the federal government invested in the Golden Gate Bridge. Elsewhere, he has used a royal "we" to seemingly credit the federal government.

"We built this country together. We built railroads and highways. We built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. We built those things together," Obama said on May 10 in Seattle.
"We were creating the conditions for everybody to be able to succeed," Obama said. "These things made us all richer. They gave us all opportunity. They moved us all together, all forward, as one nation, and as one people.
"And that's the true lesson of our past," Obama concluded.

But it is not true.

The federal government did not conceive of the Golden Gate Bridge. Or design it. Or finance it. Or build it. Nor did the state government of California.

The people of Marin, San Francisco, Sonoma and Del Norte counties, as well as parts of Napa and Mendocino counties, built the bridge. The Bank of America financed it by buying bonds approved by voters in those counties. And drivers who actually crossed the bridge and paid its toll provided the money to pay off those bonds -- a feat accomplished only 34 years after the bridge was completed.
The movement to build the bridge, Louise Nelson Dyble reported in "Paying the Toll: Local Power, Regional Politics and the Golden Gate Bridge," essentially started at a 1923 meeting convened by Frank P. Doyle, chairman of the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce. The movement crystallized when state assemblyman Frank L. Coombs, a native Californian born in 1853, pushed through legislation permitting the creation of a "special district" that Northern California counties could join if they wished for the purpose of building a bridge from San Francisco to Marin.

The special district was a corporation separate and apart from state and local governments. It was dependent on local voters for authorization, who in turn were responsible for guaranteeing its funding.

This differed sharply from the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge, which would be funded by both the state and federal governments.
"In contrast," writes Dyble, "Golden Gate Bridge boosters were vehement about maintaining local control of the project. However, local control also meant local risk; even Coombs, the sponsor of the enabling act for the Golden Gate Bridge, remarked that its financing put a 'heavy burden on the small counties.' Also, the Golden Gate Bridge had little chance of winning state or federal assistance because the bridge district was structured to limit its accountability to other governments."
Dyble quotes a remarkable claim published in a report from the chief engineer for the project. "After the 40th year, the bridge having retired its bonds and accumulated the substantial surplus of 17 million-odd besides, will become free," said the report. "The user's tax of a toll bridge falls only on THOSE WHO USE THE BRIDGE. Thus the visitor relieves the local taxpayer and pays his pro rata cost of the improvement."
In 1930, Dyble reported, the people in the six counties that were part of the special district voted by the necessary two-thirds majority to approve a bond issue.
But that was just one year after the 1929 stock market crash. Who would buy the bonds?
As Kevin Starr wrote in "Golden Gate: The Life and Times of America's Greatest Bridge," the special district looked into borrowing money from the federal Reconstruction Finance Corp., which had already provided $71.4 million in financing for the Bay Bridge. But that was to no avail.
"Enter Amadeo Peter Giannini, chairman and president of the Bank of America and the controlling presence on the Bankamerica syndicate that was considering the purchase of $6 million in Golden Gate Bridge District bonds necessary to begin construction," wrote Starr.
According to Starr, Giannini asked Strauss how long the bridge would last. "Forever," said Strauss.

But the debt incurred in building the bridge was not eternal. The bridge district paid it off in 1971.

Alas, as Dyble noted in her history, the bridge district then morphed into a mass transit agency that uses tolls imposed on motorists to subsidize buses and ferries.

Obama's repeated use of the Golden Gate Bridge as a symbol to justify his use of federal deficit spending to sustain a manifestly flawed vision for spurring economic growth is ironic because the building of that bridge is as much a symbol of local action and fiscal prudence as the bridge itself is an icon of architectural excellence and engineering prowess.

Posted by WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

Obama's Educational Excellence Initiative

• 
• Walter E. Williams
  

Aug 15, 2012

President Barack Obama recently wrote an executive order that established a White House initiative on educational excellence for black Americans that will be housed in the Department of Education. It proposes "to identify evidence-based best practices" to improve black achievement in school and college. Though black education is in desperate straits, the president's executive order will accomplish absolutely nothing to improve black education. The reason is that it does not address the root causes of educational rot among black Americans. It's not rocket science; let's look at it.
The president's initiative contains not one word about rampant inner-city school violence, which makes educational excellence impossible. During the past five years, Philadelphia's 268 schools had 30,000 serious criminal incidents, including assaults -- 4,000 of which were on teachers -- robberies and rapes. Prior to recent layoffs, Philadelphia's school district employed about 500 police officers. In Chicago last year, 700 young people were gunfire victims, and dozens of them lost their lives. Similar stories of street and school violence can be told in other large, predominantly black cities, such as Baltimore, Detroit, Cleveland, Oakland and Newark.
If rampant school crime is not eliminated, academic excellence will be unachievable. If anything, the president's initiative will help undermine school discipline, because it advocates "promoting a positive school climate that does not rely on methods that result in disparate use of disciplinary tools." That means, for example, if black students are suspended or expelled at greater rates than, say, Asian students, it's a "disparate use of disciplinary tools." Thus, even if blacks are causing a disproportionate part of disciplinary problems, they cannot be disciplined disproportionately.

Whether a student is black, white, orange or polka-dot and whether he's poor or rich, there are some minimum requirements that must be met in order to do well in school. Someone must make the student do his homework, see to it that he gets a good night's rest, fix a breakfast, make sure he gets to school on time and make sure he respects and obeys his teachers. Here's my question: Which one of those requirements can be accomplished by a presidential executive order, a congressional mandate or the edict of a mayor? If those minimal requirements aren't met, whatever else is done is for naught.

Spending more money on education cannot replace poor parenting. If it could, black academic achievement wouldn't be a problem. Washington, D.C., for example, spends $18,667 per student per year, more than any state, but comes in dead last in terms of student achievement. Paul Laurence Dunbar High School was established in 1870 in Washington, D.C., as the nation's first black public high school. From 1870 to 1955, most of its graduates went off to college, earning degrees from Harvard, Princeton, Williams, Wesleyan and others. As early as 1899, Dunbar students scored higher on citywide tests than students at any of the district's white schools. Its attendance and tardiness records were generally better than those of white schools. During this era of high achievement, there was no school violence. It wasn't racially integrated. It didn't have a big budget. It didn't even have a lunchroom or all those other things that today's education establishment says are necessary for black academic achievement.
Numerous studies show that children raised in stable two-parent households do far better educationally and otherwise than those raised in single-parent households. Historically, black families have been relatively stable. From 1880 to 1960, the proportion of black children raised in two-parent families held steady at about 70 percent; in 1925 Harlem, it was 85 percent. Today only 33 percent of black children benefit from two-parent families. In 1940, black illegitimacy was 19 percent; today it's 72 percent.
Too many young blacks have become virtually useless in an increasingly high-tech economy. The only bright outlook is the trickle of more and more black parents realizing this and taking their children out of public schools. The president's initiative will help enrich the education establishment but do nothing for black youngsters in desperate educational need.

REID'S COW AND BIDEN'S PARROT

Posted by WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

The Current Crisis

Harry Reid's Cow and Joe Biden's Parrot

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. on 8.16.12 @ 6:10AM

The Senate majority leader continues to stonewall on a sensitive matter.

WASHINGTON -- A week passes, and thus far the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has yet to tell us whether he is or is not having sexual relations with a cow. As was reported in this column last week, based on sources in the field, Mr. Reid has been involved with the cow for at least three months, possibly more. My sources cannot be identified for obvious reasons. Even the New York Times would not reveal their identities. The story is that hot.

It is, of course, possible that the relationship is purely platonic. On the other hand, possibly Mr. Reid is more involved with the cow than might have been anticipated. It is time for him to come clean. He owes it to the American people and conceivably to the Department of Agriculture. Preferably he should make his statement on the floor of the Senate, which he reserves for such solemn occasions. For instance, his recent charge that the probable Republican presidential candidate, Mr. Mitt Romney, has paid no taxes for the better part of ten years was made there. His statement about the cow is no less important. Mr. Reid, we are waiting.

Yet let us now move on from Mr. Reid and his relationship -- platonic or otherwise -- with that cow (Bos primigenius), and let us come to the heart of the matter. What does President Barack Obama have to say for himself and his party? In this election year, does not the President as leader of his Democratic Party have an obligation to the American people to look into such serious charges? There are, of course, moral questions here and possibly questions regarding animal rights. Perhaps the Democrats are expanding the moral parameters in this affair. Well, it is not like them to refrain from boasting about it.

Naturally, there are also political questions. Will the Democratic Party extend the franchise to cows? This could become a whole new constituency for the Democrats. They could extend the franchise to the entire world of barnyard animals. Think of the consequences! They could sew up a massive majority for years to come, especially in rural areas. Talk about diversity, though there will have to be adjustments made in voting machines.

However, let us to return to Mr. Reid. My charge has gained credibility throughout the nation. Just the other day in Denver, Mr. Ross Kaminsky on 630 KHOW, the top-rated show in Colorado, commented favorably on my column, and its gravamen is gaining credence throughout the western United States. Soon its charges will be spreading to Mr. Reid's home state of Nevada. Is Mr. Reid simply going to ignore the matter? The Democrats are going to have to answer these charges eventually. After all, we are talking about the House Majority Leader!

As for Mr. Obama and the Obama presidential campaign, what do they have to hide? Already their credibility is in tatters owing to their shoddy charges against Mr. Romney. First there was the charge regarding his taxes. Then there was the charge that his decisions at Bain Capital killed the wife of a man felicitously named Mr. Joe Soptic. His charge was leveled against Mr. Romney despite the fact that he left Bain Capital two years before Mr. Soptic lost his job and his health insurance. At any rate, it really does not matter whether Mr. Soptic had health insurance because Mrs. Soptic was covered by her own insurance policy. Mr. Soptic told CNN she worked until 2002 or 2003 when she quit because of an injury. However, there is good news. She did not die until 2006. Still the Democrats lay her death to Mr. Romney. That is what we call Sophistry!

Now comes Mr. Romney's choice of a running mate, Congressman Paul Ryan. There are literally hundreds of lies that can be told about him, possibly thousands. But there is a problem with Mr. Ryan. He has answers. In politics he could be called the Answer Man.

I advise the entire Democratic Party to clear this question up now. Has Mr. Reid or has he not been canoodling with a cow? It is important because next week I shall be divulging the relationship of Vice President Joe Biden with a parrot, and the parrot is astonishingly lucid, at least in comparison to Mr. Biden.

12 YEAR OLDS CAN GET STERILIZED WITHOUT PARENTAL KNOWLWDGE OR SANCTION

Posted by WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

Parents, Would You Want To Know If Your 12 Year Old Got Sterilized?

posted on August 15, 2012 by Giacomo

38 Comments

198

Thanks to Obamacare and the contraceptive mandate, your underage daughter can now go out and get birth control pills, an abortion and even permanent sterilization without your consent or knowledge.

If your 12 year old daughter destroys someone else’s property, you may be held responsible to pay for the damages since she is a minor. If she has sex with a boy 18 years old or older, he could be found guilty of statutory rape because she is under age. But thanks to our family caring president, that same daughter can decide to have major surgery to have herself sterilized without your consent and knowledge.
The wording of the contraceptive mandate defines the benefits as applying to “all women with reproductive capacity.” Some girls as young as 12 years of age are capable of getting pregnant meaning they have reached reproductive capacity, so they would qualify to receive the benefits of the contraception mandate.

Now realize that President Barack Obama, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi celebrated the enactment of the contraception mandate that took effect Aug. 1. They celebrated the loss of some of your parental rights. They celebrated the division of families that the mandate could and probably will cause. They celebrated their triumph over biblical and family values, and they celebrated using your tax dollars.

I hope and pray that this makes you madder than Joe Biden at a Tea Party rally. Take that anger to the polls this November and get rid of these flaming liberals that care nothing for you as a parent or your rights and responsibilities to your children. Show them whose turn it is to party when they lose their jobs and Obamacare is repealed and replaced with something that retains family values and your parental rights.

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/6600/parents-would-you-want-to-know-if-your-12-year-old-got-sterilized/#ixzz23jHyB0JY

BIDEN-CLINTON-OBAMA WHAT RACE ARE THEY??

Posted by WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

Black Like Us: The Race Clownery of Obama-Biden

• 
• Michelle Malkin
  

Aug 15, 2012

Looks like Vice President Joe Biden has been taking extracurricular Democratic jive-talking lessons. The results of condescending liberals' cynical racial pandering attempts are, as always, seismically cringe-inducing.
At a campaign event in Danville, Va., the gaffetastic veep dropped his g's and picked up a bizarre twang in front of an audience of black voters. Middle-Class Joe swapped his Home Depot apron for an A.M.E. preacher's robe and sermonized about the big, bad GOP.
Romney's "gonna let the big banks once again write their own rules," Biden shouted. "Unnnn-chain Wall Street," he exclaimed with pulpit bravado. "They're gonna put y'all back in chains," the pasty Delaware wheeler-dealer faux-drawled. Extra-emphasis on the "y'all."
Yes, Biden is rattling chains like an extra in "Roots." This is the same politician of pallor who cracked jokes about Indians who work in 7-Elevens and who referred to his now-boss as "clean" and "articulate." Yet, Biden's demagoguery was met with approving hoots and hollers. Or rather, hollas.
Naturally, the defiant Obama campaign backed up Biden and gave a shout-out of its own. Welcome to the new tone -- and the same old slime. Prevaricating spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter (last seen defending the phony, indefensible Romney-killed-a-steelworker's-wife ad run by Obama Super PAC Priorities USA) chimed in after Biden's speech. "We have no problem with those comments," she told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell. Biden "was using a metaphor" with which the president agrees.
Timing matters. Biden's race-baiting came after a weekend clogged with divisive jabs at GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's announcement of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate.
Democratic Rep. Donna Christensen, the non-voting delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands to the U.S. House of Representatives, tweeted: "Wait a minute! Are there black people in Va? Guess just not w Romney Ryan! At least not seeing us. We know who's got our back & we have his." Left-wing actress Mia Farrow watched the announcement and derided a "whole bunch of white people." They were joined by countless "progressive" social media users who mocked the GOP's "white guy, white guy 2012!!!" Sirius XM radio host Dave Rubin -- himself the color of discount Charmin toilet paper -- called Romney-Ryan "the whitest ticket since the KKK voted for their box social chairperson."
Gotta love post-racial America!
The poisonous slavery allusion echoed the former pastor of Biden's boss. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, you may recall, used the same "chains" imagery to justify his "God Damn America" diatribe. "America," he inveighed in Obama's old Chicago-based Trinity United Church, put blacks in "chains ... and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America'? No, no, no. Not God bless America; God damn America!"
Biden's stunt also echoes Hillary Clinton's infamous black church minstrel performances in which she unleashed a mortifying Southern-spiced-with-street accent to show her street solidarity: "For the last five years, we've had No. Power. At. All. And that makes a big difference, because when you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation. An' yew know what ah'm talkin' about." At an event with race-hustler Al Sharpton, she poured it on thicker: "I'm afraid I'm gonna lift up the rug, and I'm goin' to see so much stuff uh-nder thar. ... You know, what is it about us always havin' to clean up after people? ... But this is not just goin' to be pickin' up socks off the floor. This is goin' to be cleanin' up the government."
At least the only thing she manufactured was her patronizing dialect. Remember candidate Barack Obama's 2007 Selma, Ala., speech? To court black voters, Obama claimed that President Kennedy had sponsored the airlift in Africa responsible for bringing his family to the U.S. and asserted that Selma's 1965 Bloody Sunday demonstration brought his parents together and led to his birth. Of course, JFK didn't take office until two years after Obama's father arrived in the U.S., and the president was born four years before Bloody Sunday.

Obama-Biden 2012: Never let facts, civility or scruples get in the way of a racist racial pander.

WEATHER SERVICE NEEDS HOLLOW POINT 40 CALIBER ROUNDS????

Posted by WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

NOAA Buying Hollow-Point Ammo … for Weather Service?

posted on August 15, 2012 by Tad Cronn

292 Comments

655

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has put in an order for 46,000 rounds of .40-caliber hollow-point bullets.

This follows the order of 450 million rounds of hollow-point ammo by the Department of Homeland Security.

The NOAA order was originally attributed to the National Weather Service, but once the news got out, the NOAA said the ammo and 500 paper targets were intended for its Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement. The online order still says National Weather Service, however.

Hollow-point bullets are designed to flatten and spread out on impact, causing a larger wound than ordinary ammunition and increasing the likelihood of a fatal injury.

It’s not the sort of thing you would normally waste on shooting paper targets. Or on fish. Or on rainclouds.

All of which raises a few questions. …
Meanwhile, back at the Department of Homeland Security, officials have been making preparations for what looks like a civil war.

In addition to the millions of rounds of bullets, the DHS has been ordering riot gear, bulletproof traffic-stop booths and even more bullets — these .357-Magnum rounds capable of shooting through walls.

All this beefing up of DHS forces is ostensibly in preparation for the Democratic and Republican national conventions and the presidential inauguration.
The New Black Panther Party has threatened violence at the Republican convention. Chief of Staff Michelle Williams threatened the RNC, saying the Black Panthers’ “foot will be on you goddamn motherf—ers’ necks.”
These are the people Attorney General Eric Holder gave a pass to in a voter intimidation case.
Occupy Wall Street, according to its website, is planning protests during both political conventions, but since OWS is manipulated by the White House, the real action will likely be at the Republican convention.

With the DHS and other agencies armed to the teeth, look for things to possibly get ugly very quickly in Tampa.

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/6604/noaa-buying-hollow-point-ammo-for-weather-service/#ixzz23fLabTmu

"OBAMA DREAM ACT " PROVES NEED FOR VOTER PHOTO IDS

Posted by WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

'Obama DREAM Act' proves need for voter photo ID laws

rts!

Obama's DREAM Act, without government voter citizenship and photo ID requirement, is an open invitation to voting fraud.

Credits: 

The New Yorker

The famous Chicago 'Godfather,' Al Capone, would be proud of the way that President Barack Obama and his administration are freely trampling the U.S. Constitution, to 'enlarge' sympathetic [minority] voting pools--while simultaneously using good friend Eric Holder's Department of Justice to challenge pesky 'voter photo ID laws.'

Clearly, the 'position' of the horse and cart are irrelevant, as 'Operation Election Theft' involves a 'massively-parallel' tactical architecture, which is being implemented simultaneously across the nation by Team Obama.

On the one hand is President Obama's failure to uphold his oath of office to ... "defend the Constitution of the United States," by using a most-likely illegal Executive Order to circumvent Congress' rejection of the Democrat's 'DREAM Act' legislation--now known as 'Obama's DREAM Act.'

And today the game began, with young illegal immigrants are lining up by the thousands at consulates across the country to take advantage of the Obama administration program allowing them to apply for a two-year reprieve from deportation, according to Catherine Herridge's FOXNews article today.
Incredibly, 1.8 million undocumented immigrants could be eligible for the program, which requires applicants can fill out a six-page form, pay a $465 fee and submit documents proving their identity in order to qualify.
However, although immigration officials say the documents will be closely scrutinized--given the potential for fraud--as expected, there is no uniform standard. Lines began forming yesterday, as illegal immigrants tried to get a leg up in seeking their 'passport applications.'
The crowds Tuesday and Wednesday are the most visible demonstration to date of how many people are interested in applying for Barack Obama's new reprieve program named "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals."
Applicant Kristi Alarcon, who was waiting in line outside Houston's Mexican consulate, capsulized the real 'intent' for Team Obama to make this [also probably unconstitutional] program a pre-election priority...

"We are waiting for our passports. We want to get our passport, because Obama might be asking for them."

And across the country, in the City of Angels, advocates were holding workshops to 'teach' illegal immigrants how to apply under the program, whose requirements are not that stringent, and interestingly 'capture' the requirements for being an eligible voter--must have a high school diploma or GED, or be a military veteran, and can't have a felony record.
Therefore, so long as they don't have to prove U.S. citizenship to get a government-issued photo ID card for voting, and the fact that the program only provides applicants with 'protection' for two years, would compel them to answer 'Obama's call' (as Ms. Alarcon put it above), and 'vote' in unrestricted droves for Barack Obama and Democrats in the November elections--especially in heavily Hispanic swing states like Florida, Colorado and...

Pennsylvania, where today, Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson said he wouldn't grant an injunction that would have halted the law requiring each voter to show a valid photo ID--which Democrats say will suppress votes among President Barack Obama's supporters, according to an Associated Press article in FOXNews today.

The Republican-penned law that passed without a single Democrat vote, has ignited a furious debate over voting rights as Pennsylvania is poised to play a key role in deciding the presidential contest in November.
Democrats insist the law will suppress the elderly, minority, poor and college student vote--to help the Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, beat Democrat Barack Obama.

From a practical standpoint Democrat's claim is pure hyperbole.

First, the elderly already require photo ID to sign up for Medicare and to cash Social Security checks—or even open the bank account into which they are deposited.

Second, the ‘poor’ already had to produce a photo ID (and proof of citizenship) to register for welfare benefits and food stamps.

Finally, if there is a college student in this country who is a U.S. citizen and cannot produce valid U.S. birth certificate from just 18 years ago, then the origin of their Social Security number needs to be investigated--which has the 'dual purpose' of being their "Student ID Number."

Witold J. Walczak, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who helped argue the case for the plaintiffs, responded to the news with uninformed impotence...

We're not done, it's not over ... It's why they make appeals courts.

Unfortunately for Walczak and the Democrats, this gambit is over--because it would require four of the six Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices to overturn Judge Simpson’s ruling--which is not very likely as the court is now evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.
Plaintiff's attorneys also argued that some voters won't know about the law until they get to the polls, where long waits would result as election workers struggle to carry out 'a complicated and unnecessary law,' amid the traditionally larger turnout in presidential elections.
Lawyers from the attorney general's office, parried that argument by pointing out the state will begin issuing a special photo ID card for registered voters, who are unable to get a Penn DOT-issued ID and lack any other photo ID that is acceptable under the law, such as a passport or active-duty military ID.
They also said the state is rolling out a public relations campaign to make [people] aware of the law.

In the end, Democrats can solve this voter photo ID problem by 'dual-tasking' the very same communication system and [campaign-funded] buses they have organized to pick these people up on election day, wherein they tutor them how to vote [the Democrat ticket], while feeding them lunch on the way to their polling places.

Obviously, the scurrilous words and deeds of Barack Obama and the Democrats reveal that it must be mandatory, at every polling place in the nation, to require proof of citizenship and residency for voter registration, and require a [current] photo ID to receive a voting ballot on Election Day, in order to maintain the integrity of the electoral process.

Copyright 2012 by Jeffrey Klein
"Stay informed to stay ahead!"
If you like what you have read, you can receive Mr. Klein's articles automatically as they are published, by visiting his blog at www.TheConservativeForce.com, and using the "Free Subscribe" button in the upper right corner of the page.
You can also follow us on Twitter at www.Twitter.com/JeffreyKlein2

40 POINTS THAT PUT OBAMA AND ROMNEY IN THE SAME BOAT

Posted by WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

40 Points That Prove That Barack Obama And Mitt Romney Are Essentially The Same Candidate

By Michael, on August 15th, 2012

 

   

What a depressing choice the American people are being presented with this year.  We are at a point in our history where we desperately need a change of direction in the White House, and we are guaranteed that we are not going to get it.  The Democrats are running the worst president in American history, and the Republicans are running a guy who is almost a carbon copy of him.  The fact that about half the country is still supporting Barack Obama shows how incredibly stupid and corrupt the American people have become.  No American should have ever cast a single vote for Barack Obama for any political office under any circumstances.  He should never have even been the assistant superintendent in charge of janitorial supplies, much less the president of the United States.  The truth is that Barack Obama has done such a horrible job that he should immediately resign along with his entire cabinet.  But instead of giving us a clear choice, the Republicans nominated the Republican that was running that was most similar to Barack Obama.  In fact, I don't think we have ever had two candidates for president that are so similar.  Yes, there are a few minor differences between them, but the truth is that we are heading into Obama's second term no matter which one of them gets elected.  The mainstream media makes it sound like Obama and Romney are bitter ideological rivals but that is a giant lie.  Yeah, they are slinging lots of mud at each other, but they both play for the same team and the losers are going to be the American people.

Republicans are being told that they have "no choice" but to vote for Romney because otherwise they will get another four years of Obama.

This "lesser of two evils" theme comes out every four years.  We are told that we "must" vote for a horrible candidate because the other guy is even worse.

Well, millions of Americans are getting sick of this routine.  Perhaps that is why it is being projected that as many as 90 million Americans of voting age will not vote this year.

Yes, Barack Obama has been so horrible as president that it is hard to put it into words.

But Mitt Romney would be just like Barack Obama.

Those that are dreaming of a major change in direction if Romney is elected are going to be bitterly, bitterly disappointed.

The following are 40 ways that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are essentially the same candidate....

1. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported TARP.

2. Mitt Romney supported Barack Obama's "economic stimulus" packages.

3. Mitt Romney says that Barack Obama's bailout of the auto industry was actually his idea.

4. Neither candidate supports immediately balancing the federal budget.

5. They both believe in big government and they both have a track record of being big spenders while in office.

6. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both fully support the Federal Reserve.

7. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are both on record as saying that the president should not question the "independence" of the Federal Reserve.

8. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both said that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke did a good job during the last financial crisis.

9. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both felt that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke deserved to be renominated to a second term.

10. Both candidates oppose a full audit of the Federal Reserve.

11. Both candidates are on record as saying that U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has done a good job.

12. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both been big promoters of universal health care.

13. Mitt Romney was the one who developed the plan that Obamacare was later based upon.

14. Wall Street absolutely showers both candidates with campaign contributions.

15. Neither candidate wants to eliminate the income tax or the IRS.

16. Both candidates want to keep personal income tax rates at the exact same levels for the vast majority of Americans.

17. Both candidates are "open" to the idea of imposing a Value Added Tax on the American people.

18. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the TSA is doing a great job.

19. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported the NDAA.

20. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported the renewal of the Patriot Act.

21. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the federal government should be able to indefinitely detain American citizens that are considered to be terrorists.

22. Both candidates believe that American citizens suspected of being terrorists can be killed by the president without a trial.

23. Barack Obama has not closed Guantanamo Bay like he promised to do, and Mitt Romney actually wants to double the number of prisoners held there.

24. Both candidates support the practice of "extraordinary rendition".

25. They both support the job-killing "free trade" agenda of the global elite.

26. They both accuse each other of shipping jobs out of the country and both of them are right.

27. Both candidates are extremely soft on illegal immigration.

28. Neither candidate has any military experience.  This is the first time that this has happened in a U.S. election since 1944.

29. Both candidates earned a degree from Harvard University.

30. They both believe in the theory of man-made global warming.

31. Mitt Romney has said that he will support a "cap and trade" carbon tax scheme (like the one Barack Obama wants) as long as the entire globe goes along with it.

32. Both candidates have a very long record of supporting strict gun control measures.

33. Both candidates have been pro-abortion most of their careers.  Mitt Romney's "conversion" to the pro-life cause has been questioned by many.  In fact, Mitt Romney has made millions on Bain Capital's investment in a company called "Stericycle" that incinerates aborted babies collected from family planning clinics.

34. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the Boy Scout ban on openly gay troop leaders is wrong.

35. They both believe that a "two state solution" will bring lasting peace between the Palestinians and Israel.

36. Both candidates have a history of nominating extremely liberal judges.

37. Like Barack Obama, Mitt Romney also plans to add "signing statements" to bills when he signs them into law.

38. They both have a horrible record when it comes to job creation.

39. Both candidates believe that the president has the power to take the country to war without getting the approval of the U.S. Congress.

40. Both candidates plan to continue running up more government debt even though the U.S. government is already 16 trillion dollars in debt.