Thursday, November 12, 2015

Hal Moore: From Kentucky boyhood to very good soldier at West Point! (They were soldiers, and they were young)

Opelika-Auburn News ^ | Wednesday, November 11, 2015 | Toby Warren 

A little boy by the name of Hal Moore was born on Feb. 13, 1922, and reared in Bardstown, Ky. He had a different DNA – a leadership DNA. Although the family home was in the town, his home was surrounded by nearby woods.
This boy loved nature, the woods and even the stars. Often at night, he would lie on his back and watch the stars dance. He practiced throwing his favorite knife into a tree aiming for the exact spot. In shooting a rifle, he never missed his target. As a teenager, he enjoyed competed in shooting contests. A sharpshooter he was, a skill that would serve him and America well in the years to come.
In his teens, his attention was given to reading, to his faith, and to accepting what obedience meant. There were many times when his knuckles were rapped with a ruler as a student at St. Joe Prep in Bardstown. But he loved school, and once said, “The librarian told me that I had read every book in the library. Through reading I learned to spell.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

A man among men. Glad he and Joe Galloway told his story — and that of all those who fought and perished at Ia Drang in a “war” the politicians saw fit to lose with ROEs that seem to be little changed today. Only God knows how many of our soldiers died needlessly.
Shortly after I first saw “We Were Soldiers”, I had the following email exchange with Joe Galloway:
Dear Joe,
Thank you and Gen. Moore for allowing the film to be made and for working with Gibson - one of the few people in Hollywood I trust - to keep the story as close to events as
was possible. How Hollywood COULD embellish la Drang is beyond me.
I spent nearly 4 years training young troopers to be Combat Engineers at Fort Belvoir between ‘62 and ‘66. Some of THEIR names grace that black monolith on the Mall.
One fellow instructor is memorialized here:
There must NEVER be another Viet Nam (or Somalia! - thank you, Bill Clinton) - EVER!
God bless you and General Moore for helping those of us who have never seen combat better understand the horror and sacrifice of war and the love between the men who
are consigned to it by politicians who send them off to misadventures like Nam with one arm tied behind their backs.
McNamara popped up on the book tour circuit a while back promoting his mea culpa on Viet Nam. Through clenched teeth, I watched him weep during one TV interview as he
declared that he KNEW the entire exercise was wrong as it unfolded - but did NOTHING to try to stop it. They are excavating a new, lower level of Hell for McNamara as you read this. It is just above LBJ’s.
With a silent prayer for ALL those who fight and die for this country, I extend warmest personal regards to you and General Moore. May you both enjoy the remainder of what
I pray will be long and peaceful lives. Unlike most of us, you have earned them.
Reply from Joe Galloway of 10-21 -02
Nope, They are putting McNamara right in the same level with LBJ, and boy is LBJ pissed at him for all this whining around he’s been doing. He can bend his ear for all eternity, while they fan each other......
Thanks for your kind words about the book and the movie, I will share them with Gen Moore.

How Eisenhower Dealt With America’s First Illegal Crisis ^ | November 11, 2015 | KEITH FARRELL 

This is not the first time the US has dealt with an illegal immigration problem. Only last time it was dealt with in a decidedly swifter and sterner manner. The response, coordinated by President Dwight Eisenhower, resulted in nearly 3 million illegal immigrants being sent home.
During his administration, Eisenhower became the first American president forced to deal with problems stemming from illegal immigration. Only, in Eisenhower s time the politically correct culture of liberal sensitivities had yet to emerge.
There was not much in the way of sympathy for those who had crossed into the country illegally.
Eisenhower told the New York Times exactly what had caused the problem: The rise in illegal border crossing by Mexicans [illegal immigrants] to a current rate of more than 1 million cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the federal government.
Ike took quick and decisive action. He used 1,075 Border Patrol Agents to seal the border. In doing so, he achieved a task our government today deems impossible with a force that is 10% larger. Once the border was sealed, Eisenhower went about the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens.
In June of 1954, he appointed retired General Joseph Swing to head Operation Wetback, which sent local and federal officials on sweeps of Mexican neighborhoods looking for illegals.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Pundits Have It All Wrong - Ted Cruz Is a Real Threat For the Nomination

Politico ^ | November 12, 2015 | Rich Lowry 

Cruz tends to be an afterthought in the Sunday show chatter, and on TV generally.
The Atlantic tracks candidate mentions on cable TV. Over the past 100 days, Cruz ranks ninth among all presidential candidates from both parties, well behind Chris Christie and just above Kasich. Over about the past 30 days, he's still ninth, just ahead of that juggernaut Martin O'Malley.
A Washington Post analysis specifically looked at the amount of cable TV coverage devoted to each candidate compared with his or her position in the polls. It found that Cruz got 60 percent less coverage than you'd otherwise expect from July through October.
The political press corps made up its mind about him - too divisive - as soon as he showed up in Washington, and has never entirely gotten over its dismissive treatment of his campaign.
Nonetheless, it should be obvious to any fair observer that Cruz is a serious threat for the nomination. Be warned, and get over it.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

EPA punishes Gold King spill disaster contractor with… millions in new contract awards!

Hotair ^ | 11/12/2015 | Jazz Shaw 

It’s a banner day for thrift and spending control in the federal government. Earlier, Ed already talked about the cash bonanza at the VA, but that’s being followed up by breaking news from the Environmental Protection Agency. You probably recall that unpleasant little incident at the Gold King mine in Colorado where they spilled millions of gallons of toxic sludge into the local river system. Well, the contractor who was employed by the agency during that particular disaster has been identified and the EPA had a good, long talk with them. The result was to award them millions of dollars in new contract enhancements because… why quit now just when things are going so well? (Daily Caller)
Environmental Protection Agency officials awarded nearly $2.7 million in contract enhancements to Environmental Restoration LLC after the firm was involved in the Colorado Gold King Mine disaster that dumped three million gallons of yellow wastewater into a drinking water source for people in three states and the Navajo Nation.
The wastewater poured into the Animas River, a Colorado River tributary that supplies water to people in Colorado, New Mexico and Utah. The company also got a contract enhancement worth nearly $1 million from EPA on Aug. 4, 2015, the day before the spill, according to documents compiled by the Project on Government Oversight, a non-profit government watchdog group.
If you followed our earlier coverage of the lavish spending which goes on at the EPA you already know about the designer furniture sprucing up their offices and the number of employees on long term paid leave. The Daily Caller spoke to Adam Andrzejewski, founder of the Open The Books government transparency non-profit. Adam has been tracking this as closely as anyone and it seems as if this series of embarrassing revelations is reaching a tipping point.
“The EPA has taken the concept of ‘performance bonus’ much too far by giving their on-site contractor even more work after a natural disaster at Gold Ring,” Andrzejewski told TheDCNF.
“Had the spill soiled one of the EPA’s $730 office chairs, the contractor would have been fired on the spot. If the EPA spent as much time choosing contractors as they do shopping for furniture and military hardware, our environment would be a much cleaner place,” he said.
This isn’t anything new for the EPA. Let’s move on to the bonus round and look back to 2012 when the agency spent your tax dollars on a Chinese study of pig excrement. No… I’m not making that up.
The Environmental Protection Agency awarded a $141,450 grant under the Clean Air Act to fund a Chinese study on swine manure and a $1.2 million grant to the United Nations for clean fuel promotion.
Meanwhile, there was another story we missed out on last month which deserves attention. When the EPA does actually get up out of their expensive chairs to do something, it’s usually to shut down legitimate business interests as a favor to their friends in the green activist movement. There was an application for mining permits on Pebble Bay in Alaska under consideration this year and the EPA shot them down. Nothing all that unusual there, but the fact that they refused to even investigate the situation first made the move unprecedented. (The Hill)
The House Oversight Committee report on Wednesday says the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) knew its “preemptive veto” of the Pebble Bay project last year was “unprecedented,” that it blocked the mining permit before reviewing petitions on the matter and that it improperly worked on the permit denial with mining opponents.
In a letter to the EPA, three committee Republicans write that the agency’s denial of the project was “highly questionable and lacking a legal basis.”
“The findings … show that EPA’s actions with respect to Pebble Mine are highly questionable and lacking a legal basis,” the members, led by Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), write in their letter. The lawmakers ask the EPA to withdraw its denial decision and conduct a further review of the project instead.
What level of absurdity do these stories need to reach before there is sufficient outcry from the public that Congress and the White House will take action? This is a blatantly political organization now, rife with both incompetence and liberal bias. How many tens of millions of dollars must be flushed away and what levels of internal corruption and abuse must be exposed? And yet not only does nobody lose their jobs, but the hemorrhaging of cash continues as if they’re just thumbing their noses at us now because they know we can’t do anything about it. Wasn’t this supposed to be our money? Aren’t they supposed to be working for us?

The END Draws Near! ( Majority think Clinton acted unethically or illegally in emails )

Stars & Stripes ^ | 11/12/15 | Anita Kumar 

A large majority of voters believe Hillary Clinton did something either unethical or illegal in her use of a private email system for government business, according to a new McClatchy-Marist Poll.
A total of 68 percent believe that what she did was wrong in one way or the other.
The biggest bloc, 40 percent, say she acted unethically, though legally. That includes large numbers of Democrats and independents.
The second biggest, 28 percent, believe she did something illegal.
The third, 27 percent, believe she did nothing wrong.
The results suggest that even as Clinton builds her lead for the Democratic presidential nomination over rival Bernie Sanders, a sizable number of voters have lingering questions about her behavior as secretary of state that would follow her through a general election campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

NPR Fact-Checks Fox Biz GOP Debate, But Not the Democrat Debate ^ | November 12, 2015 | Tim Graham 

NPR’s Morning Edition broke out a fact-check on the Republicans’ Fox Business debate on Wednesday morning. Did NPR do a fact-check on the first Democratic debate on October 13? Not really. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were never questioned on the facts.

They call their segment “Break It Down,” and NPR assigned three reporters to correct the GOP. First, White House reporter Scott Horsley – not known as one to question Barack Obama’s facts from the East Room or the briefing room – said Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush were incorrect when they said more businesses closed than opened: “Now that certainly was true in the early years of the Obama administration, which coincided with the Great Recession. But in 2012 and '13, according to the latest figures from the Census Bureau, more businesses opened their doors here than closed.”

Sadly, the "fact check" needed a fact check. At the New York Times-owned website, economics writer Ben Casselman explained those 2012 and 2013 numbers were from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, not the Census Bureau. (BLS counts each establishment as a new business, even if Walmart opened ten new locations.) Gallup CEO Jim Clifford complained in January the Census numbers still showed the numbers upside-down.

NPR’s Danielle Kurtzleben challenged Ben Carson’s assertion that every time the minimum wage goes up, unemployment goes up: “has the number of jobless people grown every time the minimum wage has grown? And the answer there is no. Sometimes it has, but sometimes it hasn't.”

Zarroli then picked up where other media fact-checkers did, when Trump discussed China and the new Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement:
Trump says the TPP fails to address currency manipulation, and he is right about that. There is a side agreement in which all of the countries promise not to manipulate their currencies, but critics say it's pretty much unenforceable. So, Trump is correct, but two points need to be made. First, because China's currency, the yuan, has been rising in value for a while, the International Monetary Fund now says it's fairly valued. So, China may have been guilty of currency manipulation in the past, but it's not such a big issue now. And then second, China isn't just signatory to the TPP, at least right now.

Finally, Kurtzleben insisted Carly Fiorina was incorrect about the length of the tax code: “Now say what you will about innovation, but the tax code is not 73,000 pages long. Fiorina appears to be referring to something called the CCH Standard Federal Tax Reporter. And as of 2013, that had nearly 74,000 pages. But that includes a bunch of stuff that's not the tax code, like proposed regulations. The Internal Revenue Code is much shorter than that. Now there are a few stats out there of how long it is, but the PDF I downloaded from the House of Reps website last night came in at nearly 6,500 pages. Another version I found on Amazon came in at 5,000 pages. Either way, it's nowhere near 73,000.”

The liberal site PolitiFact (Rhode Island edition) also zinged this number in 2011, reporting then that the tax code has 3.8 million words, which if you printed out in Microsoft Word, "The 3.8 million words produced 11,045 single-spaced pages."

This week, Politifact amended the word count to 4 million in 2012, and certainly more since then. They cited as "True" Sen. Ted Cruz's claim that the tax code was longer than the Bible -- they say the King James edition comes in at about 823,000 words.

But back on the October 14 Morning Edition, apparently no one mangled a fact.  Scott Horsley was the only reporter in the segment. They didn't assemble a team of fact-checkers. To "Break It Down," they ran a soundbite of Hillary Clinton claiming “We have to look at the fact that we lose 90 people a day from gun violence.” Numerous fact-checkers, like, reproduced at The Huffington Post, pointed out only a third of those deaths are homicides. But Horsley only discussed the polls on gun control, not Clinton’s grasp on the facts.

Then the second half of that “Break It Down” segment was merely Horsley explaining how the Democrats differ on breaking up the big banks. Horsley only came anywhere close to a fact-check on....Martin O’Malley, the asterisk in the polls:

MARTIN O'MALLEY: We need to separate the casino, speculative, mega-bank gambling where that we have to ensure with our money from the commercial banking, namely reinstating Glass-Steagall.

HORSLEY: Now the moderators in this CNN debate on Westwood One were too polite to point out that the debate itself was being held inside a casino in Las Vegas. But breaking up big banks is an article of faith with some progressive voters. The fear is those banks are too big, too risky, and will trigger another financial crisis. However, none of the institutions that helped trigger the last crisis -- Lehman Brothers, AIG, Countrywide - none of those combined investment and commercial banking.

The people also pointed out that Hillary Clinton mangled her own record in denying she said the TPP was the “gold standard” of trade deals, and that Bernie Sanders gave an incomplete answer on taxing the rich more to keep Social Security solvent. But NPR apparently wasn’t interested in suggesting the leading Democrats ever misspoke.

Will NPR have a fact-check segment after Saturday night's Democratic debate? Or will they skip over it again?  Feel free to send your online complaints to NPR Ombudsman Elizabeth Jensen here, and click on "Contact the Ombudsman."

The President and the Rule of Law ^ | November 12, 2015 | Judge Andrew Napolitano 

Earlier this week, a federal appeals court in New Orleans upheld an injunction issued by a federal district court in Texas against the federal government, thereby preventing it from implementing President Barack Obama's executive orders on immigration. Critics had argued and two federal courts have now agreed that the orders effectively circumvented federal law and were essentially unconstitutional.
Though the injunction on its face restrains officials in the Department of Homeland Security, it is really a restraint on the president himself. Here is the back story.
President Obama has long wished to overhaul the nation's immigration laws to make it easier for people who are here illegally to remain here and to make it easier for them eventually to acquire the attributes of citizenship. He may have a bighearted moral motivation, or he may have a partisan political motivation. I don't know which it is, but his motivation has driven him to use extraconstitutional means to achieve his ends.
During his first term in office, he attempted to have federal laws changed -- quite properly at first -- by offering proposals to Congress, which it rejected. That rejection left in place a complex regulatory scheme that is partially administered by DHS and partially by the Department of Justice. It left about 11.3 million people unlawfully present in the United States.
The conscious decision of Congress not to change the law in the face of such a large number of undocumented people here left those people, adults and children, exposed to deportation. It also left them entitled to financial benefits paid for by the states in which they reside.
Deportation is a lengthy and expensive process. The courts have ruled that all people subject to deportation are entitled to a hearing, with counsel paid for by the government. If they lose, they are entitled to an appeal, with counsel paid for by the government. The government has teams of prosecutors, defense counsel and judges who address only deportations. The highest number of people the government has successfully deported in a year is about 250,000, which was done in 2013. If you add removals without trial (many are voluntary) and rejections at the border, the number swells to 438,000 a year.
While awaiting deportation, those people here unlawfully and not confined are entitled to the social safety net that states offer everyone else, as well as the direct benefits states make available to citizens, such as public schooling, access to hospital emergency rooms, and housing and personal living assistance.
Frustrated that Congress thwarted his will, President Obama -- resorting to his now infamous and probably regretted one-liner that he can govern by using a pen and a phone -- issued a series of executive orders in 2012 to various federal agencies, directing them to cease deportation of undocumented people if they complied with certain standards that the president wished of them. The standards, compliance with which would bar deportation, were essentially the same as those that the president had sought and Congress had rejected.
Can the president write his own laws or procedures?
In the litigation that came to a head early this week, 26 states, led by Texas, sued the federal government. In that lawsuit, the states argued that they would be made to endure unbearable financial burdens if the undocumented folks stayed where they are and if the states continued to make the same social safety net available to them as they make available to their lawful residents. Thus, the states argued, the president forced the states to spend money they hadn't budgeted or collected to support a legal scheme that Congress had not only never authorized but expressly rejected.
Can the president write his own laws and procedures?
The states also argued in their lawsuit that if the DHS and DOJ complied with the president's executive orders, those federal departments would be exceeding their authority under the statutes because the president was exceeding his authority. This is a president who has argued dozens of times in public that he is not a king and that he lacks the ability to recast the laws as he wishes they had been written.
Can the president write his own laws and procedures?
In a word: No. The president can issue executive orders to officials in the executive branch of government directing those officials to enforce the laws as the president wishes them to be enforced -- within the letter and spirit of those laws. But those executive orders cannot write new laws or revise old laws or ignore existing laws that the Congress clearly expects to be enforced. That is just what a federal district court judge ruled earlier this year and just what a federal appellate court ruled in affirming the district court earlier this week.
All people who embrace the rule of law -- whether they are for open borders or for an impenetrable border wall -- should embrace these rulings because they keep the president within the confines of the Constitution, which he has sworn to uphold.
Under our constitutional system of supposedly limited government, all legislative power is vested in Congress. The president enforces the laws; he doesn't write them. His oath of office commits him to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, and it further commits him to enforce the federal laws "faithfully" -- meaning whether he personally agrees with them or not.
The clash between the president and the courts is as old as our republic itself. Courts are traditionally loath to interfere with the business of Congress or the president. Yet when the behavior of another branch of government defies core constitutional norms, it is the duty of the courts in a case properly before them to say what the Constitution means and to order compliance with it.


The president of the University of Missouri, Tim Wolfe, had to go. He had to go because he benefitted from "white privilege." That, at least, was the victorious argument of the intellectual heavyweights of Concerned Student 1950, who insisted that Wolfe acknowledge his "white privilege" before leaving office in a handwritten - not typed, dammit! - letter.
This raises some rather obvious questions, like: What is "white privilege"? Why is it that Tim Wolfe's "white privilege" mattered while that of Missouri football coach Gary Pinkel (salary: $3.1 million for helping men in pads hit each other) and Assistant Professor Melissa Click (gets paid to study Lady Gaga and 50 Shades of Grey) does not? Why is it that "white privilege" only manifests when the left wants it to manifest? Why do low-IQ dolts make up terms that only apply in Cloud Cuckoo Land, but that we all have to pretend to care about? Was Western civilization truly built brick by brick so that those same low-IQ dolts could mewl about their feelings?
You know, the simple questions.
But let's just start with that first question. What is "white privilege"?
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Five things everybody needs to know about the leaked Planned Parenthood footage

LifeSiteNews ^ | 11/10/15 | Jonathon van Maren 

November 10, 2015 (TheBridgehead) -- After taking a break of a few days, I’ve finally completed watching all of the leaked Planned Parenthood footage that some hero on Capitol Hill released onto the Internet. In two previous pieces, I summarized everything you need to know so far. Now, I’m going to lay out the most important points I gleaned from the last four leaked videos. I reviewed the videos entitled Planned Parenthood Rep Admits Affiliates Can’t Stop HarvestingPlanned Parenthood Michigan: Lisa HarrisPlanned Parenthood Michigan Workshop, and Planned Parenthood New York Rep.

1. Abortion clinics are going to harvest baby organs.

They’re not going to stop. In the shortest of the leaked videos, David Daleidan chats with a middle-aged, blond abortion provider who informs him that it’s not so much the harvesting of fetal organs that needs caution, it’s just that everyone needs to be careful so that it doesn’t end up on the front page of the New York Times. Because at the end of the day, “we can’t stop them,” she says with a shrug. “The Truth is that some might want to do it to increase their revenues and we can’t stop them. We only have carrots and sticks.”

David Daleidan, sounding incredulous: “Really? That’s the only control mechanism?”

The abortionist responds with a wry chuckle: “Well, we have medical standards and guidelines, and if they want to maintain…if they want to make it a franchise, get the stamp of approval, they have to comply with the medical standards and guidelines, which tissue donation is not a part of.”

In other words, there are plenty of different things that abortion clinics will have to comply with to achieve franchise status, including the number of people on the board, revenue cycles, accreditation, all sorts of things. “But tissue donation”—the harvesting of baby parts—“will never be one of those indicators."

It’s going to happen, it’s common, and abortionists don’t see it as a big deal. So that’s that.

2. The human experimentation the abortion industry is willing to facilitate is something out of a nightmare.

One video just shows a conversation between Michigan abortion provider Lisa Harris and David Daleidan, manning his BioMax table. They establish quite quickly that because of the gestation of the abortions her clinics perform—“19 and 6…because of other changes we’re probably going to inch that up”—she probably woudn’t be able to provide many fetal “specimens” for research. However, Harris is very interested in the idea of donating dead fetuses to human research simply because that way, women can feel as if their abortion was “a greater good.”

David Daleidan, in chilling detail, describes the types of research the dead babies could be used for, as Harris nods admiringly: “The three things in demand right now are liver, thymus, and bone marrow right now because those are the three things used to construct the humanized mouse models…They have mutant strains of mice that have no mouse immune system…and then you engraft human fetal liver, thymus, and bone marrow into the mouse. It grafts in and the cells can reconstitute a functioning human immune system in the mouse model.”

This, Harris thinks, sounds like an excellent opportunity to help women feel better about their abortions, and thus would love to brainstorm ways of getting around research regulations. After all, I’m sure there’s nothing a traumatized woman ridden with guilt and regret after an abortion would rather hear than, “Don’t worry, honey. We turned her into a mouse.”

I preferred the ethical dilemmas of John Steinbeck’s novels, as heart-wrenching as they often were. Of Mice and Men meant something less insane back then.

3. Abortionists resent having to help rape victims leave terrible situations.

After previous sting operations and investigations proved that abortion clinics were likely to send sexual assault victims back into the arms of their victims, the pro-life movement was successful in having many regulations passed that demanded these clinics report child abuse. The Michigan abortionist giving a workshop at the National Abortion Federation, however, felt this was cruel and unfair—to abortionists.

“Regulations turn physicians into agents of the state,” she complained. “Like making physicians mandatory reporters for child abuse—puts them in the same role as a state actor, saying what the state wants them to say or doing what the state wants them to do.”

I think that statement could be more accurately phrased as, “Doing what society wants you to do.” It takes a special kind of callousness to whine about having to do your part in protecting girls, especially underage girls, from abuse and rape. But a customer is a customer, and good deeds are an irritating detour that makes it take longer to get to the paycheck.

4. Abortionists resent women who speak out about regretting their abortions.

“Abortion regret” is one thing that abortionists hate having to deal with. The Michigan abortionist giving the workshop thinks that women who regret their abortions should be ignored entirely as irrelevant, since “regret pervades the field of medicine. Without perfect knowledge of the future,” one might regret anything!

It’s interesting that many abortionists seem to be completely unwilling to admit the obvious: That the procedure they carry out is fundamentally different than all of the medical procedures they compare it to, as it has no healing properties. Abortion ends a life—it unnaturally and violently stops a process whereby a woman’s offspring is developing in her womb. This is obviously going to have a much different emotional impact than a knee replacement.

What’s interesting is that the abortionist notes that she thinks much of this is situational regret—she says that many people might regret smoking, but not the cancer surgery that results from that behavior. They might regret past decisions, but not the current one. However, she doesn’t carry through with her analogy—she won’t state that people should perhaps regret the risky and irresponsible sex that resulted in the pregnancy. Because of course, without risky and irresponsible sex, the abortion industry would virtually dry up and blow away.

The greatest irony in this particular workshop is when she says that many legislators pass anti-abortion regulations and laws because they’re long past their prime and “don’t remember what it’s like to be young.” She said, with a straight face, that these regulations were “age discrimination”—in spite of the fact that it is only age discrimination that allows her and the rest of the abortion cartel to carry on with their deadly business.

5. Abortionists admit that the abortion victim photography pro-lifers use is real.

The abortion rights crowd regularly claims that the imagery used by pro-lifers is fake or doctored as a way of avoiding a discussion about the violence that imagery reveals. But when one abortionist stood up to complain that she spent a lot of time rebutting the images on Facebook, the abortionist giving the workshop surprised her.

“I actually have a different response when someone portrays those images,” she responded. “Actually that’s my week…some weeks–and that’s what it looks like. Ignoring the fetus is a luxury of activists and advocates. If you’re a provider, you can’t ignore the fetus, right, because the fetus is your marker of how well – how good a job you did.”

“If you don’t account for all the parts and you don’t look carefully, you may be setting someone up for infection or hemorrhage, or whatever. The fetus matters clinically to us. In our work we can’t ignore the fetus, because the fetus is a marker of how good a job you did.”

Here, of course, she is referring to the fact that the abortion workers have to piece the fetus back together like a gruesome jigsaw puzzle after the abortion to ensure that a stray arm or leg won’t remain behind in the violently vacated uterus to cause infection.

So it’s time to own it, says she: “I actually think we should be less about denying the reality of those images and more about acknowledging that, yeah, that’s quite a truth. So, given that we actually see the fetus the same way, and given that we might actually both agree that there’s violence in here, ask me why I come to work every day. Let’s just give them all the violence, it’s a person, it’s killing. Let’s just give them all that. And then the more compelling question is, ‘So, why is this the most important thing I could do with my life?'”

I’m starting to see why the National Abortion Federation was fighting so hard to keep this footage from being released. Abortion activists might claim that abortion imagery is fake. But abortionists know that the imagery pro-life activists use is just photos of an abortion they consider a success.

From these videos, we can see the startling difference between what the abortion activists say in public, and what the abortion technicians say in private. David Daleidan has shone a light into the darkness and sent all the creatures that reside there skittering about in panic. The videos released by the Center for Medical Progress along with the footage that was leaked give us an essential picture of how this industry actually functions. Babies on bonfires, body parts in freezers, jigsaw puzzles of torn flesh and broken bones. David Daleidan is today’s Harriet Beecher Stowe and these videos are our modern Uncle Tom’s Cabin—he is Mary Shelley with a twenty-first century Frankenstein that she could never have conjured up in her own dark imagination. David Daleidan deserves the Congressional Medal of Freedom, and whatever other assorted trinkets spineless politicians give to people who actually make a difference. Because for once, we have journalism that actually has.

Reprinted with permission from The Bridgehead

Birth certificates, fatherhood, and same-sex marriage: Sotomayor v. Sotomayor!

Mercatornet ^ | 11/12/15 | Adam J. MacLeod 

It did not take long for marriage revisionism to show its hostility to the relationship among children, mothers, and fathers. Just a few months after the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that all states must eliminate from their legal definition of marriage the essential involvement of man and woman, conflicts between this redefinition and the fundamental rights of children to be connected to both father and mother are already making their way through the courts.
In these conflicts, children’s rights might seem to enjoy an advantage of priority. Even states that redefined marriage several years ago have left in place the legal incidents of marriage that secure children to both mother and father, preserving distinct inequalities between marriage, man-man “marriage,” and woman-woman “marriage.” As Alabama Governor Robert Bentley observed in an amicus curiae brief filed in Obergefell v. Hodges (a brief to which I contributed),
Marriage equality does not exist in the United States. It cannot be made to exist in law without destroying the rights of children to be connected to their biological parents. No State can afford to do that. Even those States that have extended legal recognition to same-sex couples continue to distinguish between marriage and same-sex “marriage.”
Marriage exists to connect fathers to mothers and children, Governor Bentley reasoned. And given the terrible costs of fatherlessness, states cannot afford to sever the bonds of matrimony from the rights of children.

As a source of his confidence in the persistence of the fundamental norms of the parent-child relationship, the Governor cited Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s opinion in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. In that case, she declared that the “biological bond between parent and child is meaningful” and insisted that the right of a biological parent is “an interest far more precious than any property right.”
Justice Sotomayor thus endorsed longstanding American fundamental rights jurisprudence. Except for a brief experiment in state sovereignty over domestic relations during the antebellum period, American courts have consistently affirmed the common-law understanding of marriage as a pre-political institution, grounded in the fundamental rights and duties of the father-mother-child triad.
Nevertheless, in Obergefell Sotomayor voted with four of her colleagues to require every state to redefine marriage, joining an opinion that pointedly framed the issue as whether same-sex couples' unions would be “deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex.” As we all know, same-sex couples do not have children in the same way as naturally married couples. Thus, making the terms and conditions of man-man or woman-woman “marriage” the same as the terms and conditions of natural marriage would require eliminating the incidents of marriage that connect children to their natural parents.
So, which Justice Sotomayor will show up in the next landmark family-law case: the Sotomayor who affirms the “precious” rights and duties of biological parents or the Sotomayor who insists on full equality?
Full Marriage Equality?
The apparent conflict between Sotomayor and Sotomayor seems to hold the answer to the Great Unanswered Question: are we to have full marriage equality or not?
We might learn the answer soon. Two lawyers for Lambda Legal, a sexual-identity advocacy group, now insist that full equality between marriage and same-sex “marriage” must be pushed all the way down to the severance of marriage from the rights of children. In an op-ed titled “It's not marriage equality until same-sex parents both appear on birth certificates,” they promise to fight in every state to make it so. The lawyers, Camilla Tayor and Kyle Palazzolo, argue that a child’s fundamental right to have legal connections to her natural parents must be made contingent upon the choices of the adults who are involved in her life. If those adults are two people involved in a same-sex “marriage,” then the child’s birth certificate should record those two people as her parents—instead of her actual biological parents.
If the birth certificate will no longer record a child’s biological mother and father, why should the birth certificate list only two parents? If the authors hope to persuade the public that same-sex “marriage” is good for children, why not argue for legal recognition of the child’s biological parents andboth same-sex partners who will raise him or her? Surely the fundamental rights of the parent-child triad—those rights that Justice Sotomayor characterized as more precious than property rights—are as deserving of recognition as the novel Court-created privilege of same-sex “marriage.”
Perhaps Tayor and Palazzolo want to avoid three- and four-parent birth certificates for the sake of the child’s emotional and psychological well-being. They correctly note, “Birth certificates are the single most important identity document for a child,” and worry about the stigma that might attach to a child from a legally inaccurate certificate. But the correspondence between a child’s identity and natural parentage is precisely why birth certificates list the child’s actual, biological parents. As embodied beings, our identity is constituted in large part in our biological reality. Each of us inherits (for better and worse) the biological basis for his identity from his father and mother. To record as parent someone who is not the child’s biological parent is to make a permanent misstatement about the child’s identity.
Even adoptive children are, at least initially, legally recognized as children of their own mother and father, and are eligible for adoption only after termination of the rights of one or both biological parents. States can and do issue amended birth certificates after adoption to reflect the change, but as a statutory privilege, not in satisfaction of any constitutional right. Adoptive parents have no constitutional right to become adoptive parents, much less to be recognized as birth parents on a child’s original birth certificate. (The original record of the child’s birth is often preserved, though sealed against public access.) By contrast, biological fathers and mothers enjoy the due process rights that Justice Sotomayor characterized as “precious,” among which is the right to be recognized as father or mother until that status is terminated lawfully.
Eliminating Fathers
In a narrow class of cases the law has long tolerated, or even sanctioned, a particular misstatement about the child’s father. The law presumes that the husband of the birth mother is the father, even though this is sometimes untrue. This presumption of paternity keeps the child’s rights bound up in the marriage, preserving for the sake of the child the legal connection between marriage and parentage in cases where the the biological parents have failed to preserve the biological connection between marriage and parentage by violating the marital norm of fidelity.
Clearly, the presumption of paternity cannot apply to same-sex couples. It cannot apply to two men, because neither man will be a birth mother. And the presumption of paternity cannot apply to two women, because it is impossible for either of them to father a child.
So, Taylor and Palazzolo recast the rule as a “spousal presumption of parentage.” This is a sleight of hand. There is no presumption of parentage in the law—only of paternity. Yet this rhetorical trick is actually quite revealing. It shows how hostile the same-sex marriage agenda is to the rights of children to be connected to their fathers. A presumption of parentage applied to a birth mother’s “spouse” in a same-sex partnership would necessarily require the elimination of the biological father’s parental rights without preserving the fiction of marital fidelity. And unlike a presumption of paternity, which requires substitution of the husband for the biological father and therefore maintains the office of father in the child’s life, this novel presumption of parentage would necessarily eliminate the office of father from the child’s life entirely.
This is what “marriage equality” requires, the authors insist. And this is what Justice Sotomayor insisted that governments may not do without infringing the biological father’s due process rights.
Weakening Marital Norms
In their attempt to make their argument appear plausible, Taylor and Palazzolo reveal the distance between same-sex marriage and traditional marital norms. The presumption of paternity is an allowance that the law has long made for the failure of adults to abide by marital norms. It is a corrective for a marriage that has suffered a significant defect: infidelity.
By design, the presumption of paternity reinforces the cultural support for the norm of fidelity in marriage, while protecting the legal status of innocent children who would otherwise suffer from the violation of that norm. It is not an essential incident of a healthy, well-functioning marriage. If all natural marriages were faithful marriages, there would be no need for a presumption of paternity. The fact that Taylor and Palazzolo use their imitation “spousal presumption of parentage” to make same-sex marriage appear similar to natural marriage demonstrates the extent to which same-sex marriage flips the norms of marriage upside down. Their focal case of a same-sex marriage involving children is analogous to a defective case of a natural marriage involving children.
Taylor and Palazzolo also play a more shopworn rhetorical trick. They insist that the purpose of birth certificates is to record legal, not biological, parental status, citing the status of adopted children as evidence. But unlike the rights and duties of natural marriage and natural parentage, which are pre-political and fundamental, the rights and duties of adoptive parent-child relations are creations of positive law. Adoption has always been a special case, has always been available only where the child’s legal connection to one or both parents is already terminated, and has always been regulated by state law and subject to the state’s concession.
As Governor Bentley pointed out in his brief, adoptive parentage mimics natural parentage by preserving distinct offices for father and mother. An adoptive father can step into the office left open by a father who is dead, unknown, or whose paternal rights have been terminated; an adoptive mother can replace a biological mother whose legal connection to the child is broken. The proposal by Taylor and Palazzolo to eliminate the birth record of one or both of the child’s natural parents would do away with one or the other office—father or mother—in every case.
Once the rhetoric and shell games are cooked off, Taylor’s and Palazzolo’s argument boils down to a shameless plea to make the fundamental rights of children contingent upon the sexual choices of adults.
We might hope that Justice Sotomayor would hesitate to discard legal relations that she has characterized as meaningful and precious. But recent history does not bode well. Most federal judges have hastened to give marriage revision advocates whatever they request, even if it means making up fictitious cases and controversiesflouting well-settled legal precedents, and inventing legal issues and misrepresenting the arguments of counsel. Justice Sotomayor and four of her colleagues have either ignored those judicial misadventures or ratified them. Yet if anything can awaken our legal elites from their present delirium, it might be the reality that their equality rhetoric has lifelong consequences for children.
Surely Justice Sotomayor can persuade Justice Sotomayor to see what is at stake.

Adam MacLeod is an associate professor at Faulkner University’s Thomas Goode Jones School of Law and author of Property and Practical Reason(Cambridge University Press). Republished from The Public Discourse with permission.

FBI expands probe of Clinton emails, launches independent classification review

FOX News ^ | Nov 12, 2015 | Catherine Herridge 

The FBI has expanded its probe of Hillary Clinton's emails, with agents exploring whether multiple statements violate a federal false statements statute, according to intelligence sources familiar with the ongoing case.

Fox News is told agents are looking at U.S. Code 18, Section 1001, which pertains to "materially false" statements given either in writing, orally or through a third party. Violations also include pressuring a third party to conspire in a cover-up. Each felony violation is subject to five years in prison.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama gives early release to 6,112 federal prisoners, many of whom have violent histories!

Canada Free Press ^ | 11/12/15 | Dan Calabrese 

"This is the biggest sham they are trying to sell the American people."
This actually makes perfect sense when you think about it. Obama doesn’t take seriously the threats from external forces like Russia or Iran, having shown himself more than capable of simply dismissing any danger because that’s a better fit for his ideology than to admit the threat and take responsibility for actually doing something about it.
So why wouldn’t he do the same thing when it comes to threats inside the country from our own citizens? It’s one thing if they’re those scary right-wing militia types who make those disturbing anti-government remarks on talk radio. We can’t have that. But drug traffickers with multiple felony convictions? Especially the ones we’ve already got in federal prison?

Chevy Volt Costing Taxpayers Up to $250K Per Vehicle!

Michigan Capitol Confidential ^ | 11/11/2015 | Tom Gantert 

Each Chevy Volt sold thus far may have as much as $250,000 in state and federal dollars in incentives behind it – a total of $3 billion altogether, according to an analysis by James Hohman, assistant director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
Hohman looked at total state and federal assistance offered for the development and production of the Chevy Volt, General Motors’ plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. His analysis included 18 government deals that included loans, rebates, grants and tax credits. The amount of government assistance does not include the fact that General Motors is currently 26 percent owned by the federal government.
The Volt subsidies flow through multiple companies involved in production. The analysis includes adding up the amount of government subsidies via tax credits and direct funding for not only General Motors, but other companies supplying parts for the vehicle. For example, the Department of Energy awarded a $105.9 million grant to the GM Brownstown plant that assembles the batteries. The company was also awarded approximately $106 million for its Hamtramck assembly plant in state credits to retain jobs. The company that supplies the Volt’s batteries, Compact Power, was awarded up to $100 million in refundable battery credits (combination tax breaks and cash subsidies). These are among many of the subsidies and tax credits for the vehicle.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Protesters Predict ‘Starvation’ If Food Stamp Recipients Have To Work!

Daily Caller ^ | 11/11/15 | Connor D. Wolf 

Crowds gathered in New Orleans to protest Tuesday against a plan by Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal to reinstate food stamp work-requirements.
The federal government has required work or job training to qualify for benefits since 1996. After the recession, many states were granted waivers that allowed them to ignore the requirements. With the improved economy, several states have decided to not request their waiver be renewed. Louisiana let its waiver expire Oct. 1. The move, however, has faced adamant opposition.
“The Department of Children and Family Services and Governor Jindal do not understand the impact of their policy change,” the protesters said in a letter obtained by The Times-Picayune. “For many, food stamps stand between subsistence and starvation. Taking food out of people’s mouths will neither promote self-sufficiency nor create jobs, but rather only leave entire communities hungry.”
The protest was organized by Stand with Dignity. The group has filed an administrative complaint demanding that state reverse its decision. Protesters note 62,000 state recipients are at risk of losing their benefits. The work-requirements apply to able-bodied adults without children. The job must be at least 20 hours a week and the training must be federally approved. Without the waiver, state residents have three months to comply.
“We continue to seek opportunities for SNAP recipients to increase their self-sufficiency,” Children and Family Services Secretary Suzy Sonnier said in September. “Engaging in work activities is a key step in that transition. We are striving to reduce reliance on public benefits, increase the number of clients participating in education or workforce activities and connect Louisiana employers with ready and willing to work job candidates.”
Not everyone believes ending the waiver is a good idea. Louisiana Budget Project Director Jan Moller argues the decision ignores economic realities.
“Parts of the state that are very rural and very poor with unemployment rates far above the national average, that’s what this waiver was designed to address,” Moller told The Times-Picayune. “There are people who are desperately poor and need help.”
As of June, 44 states have either a waiver or a partial waiver. The food stamp program is officially known as The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Run by The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), it is the nation’s largest food-assistance program.

“We’re not talking about a luxury villa and a Cadillac in the driveway,” Moller continued. “Telling people you’re taking food off table for ideological reasons is bad policy and bad economics.”
According to a report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the program has increased from 17 million participants in 2000 to nearly 47 million in 2014. The improved economy has helped decrease the number of participants in recent years. Since participation hit its peak in December 2012, the number of people receiving benefits has declined by more than 1.5 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The Changing Role of America's Armed Forces

The New American ^ | 11 November 2015 | John F. McManus 

The following is the first chapter of Changing Commands: The Betrayal of America's Military, written by John F. McManus and published by The John Birch Society in 1995. In observance of Veterans Day 2015, we offer this as an opportunity to reflect back 20 years on the observations of Mr. McManus to see the progress made on such an insidious agenda of changing the role of America's armed forces. The book is available at
Changing the Role of America's Armed Forces
"The Clinton Administration appears dedicated to sending the U.S. military into dangerous seas of multinational peacekeeping in an effort to elevate the status of the United Nations into a guardian arbiter of the new world order ... [with] a new world army whose singular purpose is to enforce the whims of the arcane United Nations Security Council."
-- Senator Trent Lott (R-MS), October 5, 1993
Any person who joins the armed forces of this nation swears an oath to the U.S. Constitution. Traditionally, virtually all who put on the uniform of this nation's military have served with singular honor, in keeping with the understanding that their total mission was to protect the lives and property of the people of this nation. Maintaining the sovereignty of the United States of America has always been a fundamental part of that mission.
Except for the War Between the States, for more than two centuries, our military forces have operated from the belief that America's only enemies are outside our borders. It is difficult for a military professional, even more so than the average civilian, to conclude that an enemy lurks within, and especially within the military itself. Yet, this is the reality in America today.

Our fighting men went off to the Pacific after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. More men went off to Europe when Germany declared war on our nation a few days later. Why? Because our nation and its people -- the families of these men included -- were threatened by a foreign enemy. There was a need to fight to insure that our nation would remain free and independent.
Lately, however, the military's role has been significantly altered to include a new category of national responsibility, that of protecting the undefined "vital interests of the United States." That phrase is broad enough to cover just about anything a President might want. And recent Presidents have employed this very phrase to justify dispatching troops to the far corners of the earth and to use them to enforce resolutions of the United Nations. This is dangerously wrong.
America's Chief Executives have in recent years told the people that our "vital interests" call for injecting U.S. military might -- under UN auspices -- into an attempted takeover of one Arab nation by another, a civil war in faraway Somalia, a centuries-old territorial struggle in the former Yugoslavia, and a totally domestic fight for leadership in Haiti. Practically everything on earth has become a U.S. concern -- but always under UN jurisdiction.
No matter what the President says, however, such missions are not constitutionally authorized. Any American who feels compelled to defend one side or another in any of these conflicts is free to volunteer his or her own services, but not free to force others to participate or to pay with tax dollars for such ventures.
The U.S. military was not created to be a mercenary force for sale to the highest bidder. It is not supposed to act as a worldwide service club performing good deeds around the globe. And no President has the legitimate authority to make our armed forces available to a world government. The U.S. military is a taxpayer-supported force whose role is limited by the Constitution of the United States to the defense of the lives and property of our people and the independence of our nation.
Over the years, Congress has allowed some fundamental and frightening changes regarding the military. Resistance to this steady transformation -- both in and out of the services -- has been slight, or at least not reported. So the changes have been accepted and various steps along this suicidal route have become U.S. policy. Unless such dangerous policies are reversed, they will result in the conversion of our nation's armed forces into a full-fledged UN military force. And the American people will see an end to their freedom.
Softening up the Troops
After the text of the May 10th survey at the Twentynine Palms Marine Corps base had been confirmed by one of the Marines who was forced to participate, information about it appeared in The New American magazine. Military officials who were questioned about it quickly insisted that the project was the sole work of its creator, Navy Lieutenant Commander Guy Cunningham, a master's degree student at the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) in Monterey, California. They said his project had no official status, and that they were simply helping him so he could write his thesis.
But an official press release issued by NPS stated: "The student's idea for the thesis originated from the Department of Defense's Bottom Up Review, which included a section on peacekeeping, disaster relief, humanitarian assistance, and peace enforcement operations, and from Presidential Review Directives 13 and 25, which directed DOD to create a U.S. military force structure whose command and control would include the United Nations."
So, the Department of Defense (DOD) has indeed been directed by presidential decrees to create the kind of force structure the survey discussed. According to the NPS release, DOD has also been given presidential directives to alter the military's "command and control structure" to include a role for the United Nations. All of this, as we demonstrate in chapter 3, is leading our nation to a condition of having no military force except that which serves the UN.
A reporter for the California-based publication F&H News interviewed Lieutenant Commander Cunningham, who maintained that the idea for his survey came from "a magazine article dealing with President Clinton's apparent willingness to place U.S. military combat troops under United Nations command." Cunningham did not name the magazine, but his assessment of Mr. Clinton's "willingness" was deadly accurate.
Cunningham emphatically insisted that he merely intended to discover how Marines felt about being assigned "non-traditional" roles. He had obviously become aware of the revolutionary changes being foisted on our military. Even if his claims about his motivations are completely honest, Marine Corps senior officers should never have allowed him to proceed with such a survey. It couldn't help but undermine morale, patriotism, and the ultimate effectiveness of the troops.
But senior officers did allow the survey. At some higher levels in the Marine Corps, it is now considered acceptable to have Marine Corps personnel think about all kinds of "non-traditional" roles, including assignments in which they would fire on U.S. citizens. In other words, Marines are being programmed to accept assignments that no one wearing an American military uniform should ever be forced to accept. They are even being led to transfer their loyalty to the United Nations.
Non-Traditional Roles
As the following list shows, new roles mentioned in the notorious Twentynine Palms survey are already being introduced in all of the services:
-- In June 1993, the U.S. Army issued FM-105 Operations, a document outlining a new emphasis on "conducting operations other than war." An entire chapter of this new set of guidelines dwells on peacekeeping missions, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, riot control, and relations with nations in need of democratic assistance. The document's declaration that "the Army will not operate alone" indicates that the other services will participate in the new assignments.
-- During the summer of 1993, President Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive 13 (PDD-13), which called for rapid expansion of "the United Nation's ... peace enforcement operations around the world." Even the pro-UN New York Times commented that PDD-13's intention to place American forces under foreign commanders in UN operations amounted to a significant departure from "long-standing tradition."
-- On September 23, 1993, Representative William Goodling (R-PA), the appointed congressional delegate to the United Nations, sent a strongly worded letter to President Clinton, hurriedly signed by 32 House colleagues, expressing "serious reservations" about the Clinton plans contained in PDD-13. Goodling and his fellow representatives stated:
This proposal appears to coincide with the apparent effort on the part of the U.N. to redefine itself and expand its mission to include not simply peacekeeping, also on a more expanded scope, but also peacemaking and the nexus of "nation building."...
By issuing a blank check committing U.S. troops to the U.N. under foreign command, you would in effect be making U.N. initiatives U.S. commitments, and U.N. conflicts U.S. conflicts, while forfeiting the leadership of the troops on the ground.
The planned transfer of control of our own military had begun to become obvious to some members of Congress.
-- On October 5, 1993, Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) saw a larger and more sinister motive in the President's directives. He stated: "The Clinton Administration appears dedicated to sending the U.S. military into dangerous seas of multinational peacekeeping in an effort to elevate the status of the United Nations into a guardian arbiter of the new world order ... [with] a new world army whose singular purpose is to enforce the whims of the arcane United Nations Security Council. The Administration's effort to create a new vision for the U.S. military is embodied in ... PDD-13." Senator Lott hit the nail right on the head. His side-by-side use of the phrases "new world order" and "new world army" indicates that he fully grasps the all-encompassing seriousness of the President's plans.
-- On May 3, 1994, President Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD-25) and immediately classified it "secret." Simultaneously, National Security Adviser Anthony Lake (CFR) released an official "summary" of the document. It states that U.S. military forces can be placed under foreign command in UN operations "on a case by case basis." If the "summary" admits this much, it seems clear that the document itself must contain even worse plans and directives for the misuse of the military. Why else keep it hidden from the public and even from Congress?
-- On June 9, 1994, then-House Minority Leader Robert Michel (R-IL) sought to amend the 1995 Defense Authorization Act. His amendment called merely for placing "prudent limits" on the President's power to place U.S. forces under foreign command in UN operations. It should have emphatically forbidden the placement of troops in such a position. Opponents of the Michel measure read a letter signed by Secretary of Defense William J. Perry and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General John Shalikashvili which stated, "In sum, we believe this proposed legislation is ill-advised and potentially harmful to the execution of military operations. We urge that the House of Representatives not approve this legislation."
Thanks in part to this betrayal from the top civilian and military leaders of our armed forces, the measure was defeated in the House by a vote of 237 to 185. Which means that most members of the 1994 Congress, along with the nation's highest military officer, see nothing wrong with having foreign commanders in UN operations issuing orders to American forces.
-- A July 18, 1994 press release from Camp Pendleton Marine Corps base reported that a detachment of Marines and Navy personnel from Southern California would undergo "urban training" near Sacramento, California. The July 23rd-August 3rd TRUE (TRaining in an Urban Environment) program would prepare a military unit to become "America's quick reaction force to safeguard this country's citizens, property, and interests" overseas. As shown in our next chapter, there are ample reasons to speculate that this "quick reaction force" could eventually be used to "fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government," as the Twentynine Palms survey suggested.
-- The Washington Post reported on August 15, 1994 about a new type of "peace maneuvers" for Army regulars at Fort Polk, Louisiana. Part of the training called for Army units to "disarm the militia" while being observed by British and French officers playing the role of UN observers.
-- In November 1994, Secretary of Defense William Perry approved a plan to employ military reservists to carry out the growing number of non-traditional missions assigned to our armed forces. According to a report in the New York Times, the plan would have "many of the one million members of the National Guard and Reserves of the various armed services spend their annual training time performing real operations, including peacekeeping missions overseas...." Army Chief of Staff General Gordon R. Sullivan (CFR) said he was "very supportive" of the idea. Missions involving peacekeeping are, of course, UN missions.
-- One week after the 1994 Republican election-day sweep, incoming House Armed Services Chairman Floyd Spence (R-SC) revealed that "wholesale categories of combat units are in a reduced state of readiness." Secretary of Defense Perry reluctantly agreed with Spence's charges and added that the U.S. military's participation in overseas UN missions had forced defense officials to divert funds originally earmarked for training of stateside units. But Army Chief of Staff General Sullivan told the Boston Globe during a November 28th visit to Harvard University that he wasn't concerned about the readiness of the troops under his command. Two days later, however, President Clinton was forced to address this serious decline as he proposed a $25 billion increase in the Pentagon's budget. General Sullivan seems to care only about the readiness of troops serving the UN's interests. The country might be better served if he retired.
A New Type of Commander in Chief
Americans have ample reason to be proud of our country's military history. Numerous uniformed giants have served the nation well, especially when allowed by the President to do their jobs properly. Also, many Presidents themselves proudly wore the uniform of our nation before ascending to the highest office in the land. But like so many other changes in America, the White House is occupied today by a remarkably different kind of Commander in Chief.
When Bill Clinton became eligible for the draft while attending the University of Arkansas in 1969, he did everything fair or foul to avoid serving. In a December 1969 letter to Colonel Eugene Holmes, the university's ROTC commander at the time, the future President expressed his "loathing for the military."
That letter, along with a 1992 affidavit submitted by Holmes and additional evidence unearthed during the 1992 campaign, show that Mr. Clinton: a) used dishonorable means on several occasions to evade the draft; b) likely committed a felony in the process; and c) repeatedly lied about what he had done. But because he later became a committed CFR member, his disgraceful conduct was swept aside after it had been discovered, and he became the President of our nation.
After he entered the White House, Bill Clinton filled his Administration with individuals having a similar "loathing" for the military. In late January 1993, only days after the new Administration took office, Lieutenant General Barry McCaffrey, an assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, offered a pleasant "Good morning" to a young female Clinton aide on the White House grounds. She promptly rebuked him and told him that her personal policy was not to talk to anyone in a military uniform. What an outrage!
With Bill Clinton in the White House, morale in the military has sunk to such depths that an active duty senior officer sacrificed his career by publicly offering an attitude about the President shared by most others in the services. During a formal speech before a military audience in Germany four months after the Clinton inauguration, Air Force Major General Harold N. Campbell labeled the President a "pot-smoking ... gay-loving ... draft-dodging ... and womanizing Commander in Chief."
General Campbell was fined, demoted, and forced to retire. But nothing he stated could be denied. Having a man like Bill Clinton in the White House has taken a significant toll on the morale of those who serve.
In May 1994, President Clinton awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor posthumously to two American soldiers killed during the ill-advised military action in Somalia. Mr. Herbert Shugart, the father of an Army sergeant who perished trying to rescue a downed helicopter pilot, refused to shake the President's hand when presented with his dead son's award. He told the President: "You are not fit to be President of the United States. The blame for my son's death rests with the White House and you. You are not fit to command."
Nor is the office of Vice President in better hands. As a student at Harvard, Al Gore wrote to his father, then a senator from Tennessee, to express the view that the national aversion to communism was "paranoia," "a psychological ailment," and "national madness." He characterized the U.S. Army as an example of "fascist, totalitarian regimes." He later served in the Army on the way to a political career.
Now as Vice President, he has become far more approving of the U.S. military as long as it serves the United Nations. When 15 Americans perished on April 14, 1994 as a result of an attack by friendly fire while they were performing a patrol mission over Iraq, Gore extended official "condolences to the families of those who died in the service of the United Nations."
In his report about this incredible statement, columnist Robert Novak stressed that these remarks by the Vice President were "prepared, not impromptu." He noted that this was only one indication that Clinton Administration leaders, "distrustful and resentful of this country acting on its own in the past, truly want a new world order."
The new world order is precisely where our nation is being taken -- a redesigned world where the United Nations will reign supreme. Wherever they can, the President and his team will assign our military to the United Nations. They are serving a conspiracy the ultimate goal of which is to create a UN-led world government led by a powerful few. The rest of mankind is slated for slavery -- or extinction.
But keeping our nation independent and retaining full U.S. control of our own armed forces isn't just a nice idea, but an absolute necessity. Many more committed Americans are needed in the fight to block the sinister plans unfolding right before our eyes.
The first goal of anyone who wants to "take our country back" must be sharing sufficient information with fellow Americans to have them bring about a change in Congress. The nation sorely needs an influx of elected officials who are uncompromising Americans fully committed to their oath to the U.S. Constitution. A majority of truly informed and determined Americans in the House of Representatives alone can put a stop to the betrayal of the military, and of the nation itself.
This book has been written in hopes that many more Americans will be energized to accomplish such a goal. There is no alternative to rescuing our nation from the clutches of the Conspiracy that has, for too long, been advancing steadily toward its malevolent objectives.
Please read on as we supply the details about the plot to sacrifice American sovereignty on the altar of the United Nations.

John F. McManus is president of The John Birch Society and publisher of The New American.

Obama Just Got SHOCKING News From These States…This Could Be His Worst Nightmare!

The Washington Post via American Freedon Fighters Blog ^ | November 11, 2015 | Dean James 

Obama insists that DEMOCRATS are the future of America saying that the Republican party is 'outdated.'

In reality, Obama is dead wrong. More Republicans are making massive gains at the state and local levels. Take the victory of the governor elect Matt Bevin in Kentucky recently! Bevin, a Tea Party favorite became only the second Republican in four decades to win Kentucky’s governorship!
The Washington Post reports:
With Matt Bevin’s win in Kentucky on Tuesday night, Republicans now hold 32 of the nation’s governorships — 64 percent of all the governors mansions in the country. (One race, in Louisiana, won’t be decided until next month. Democrats believe they have a good chance of winning that race against now-Sen. David Vitter.)
Democrats’ failure to take over the Virginia state Senate means that Republicans still hold total control of 30 of the country’s 50 state legislatures (60 percent) and have total or split control of 38 of the 50 (76 percent.)
Here is a chart showing how Republicans are dominating America at a local level. That’s a whole lot of red folks!

“While the demographic and electoral challenges that Republicans must confront at the national level are very real, the idea, pushed in some circles, that those struggles are leading indicators of a dying party is absolutely wrong,” Chris Cillizza wrote for The Post.
“In fact, at the state and local level the Republican Party is considerably more robust than its Democratic counterpart.” That dominance — and what it means to the policy and political calculations and prospects for both parties at the national level — is the single most overlooked and underappreciated story line of President Obama’s time in office. Since 2009, Republicans have made massive and unprecedented gains at the state level, gains that played a central role in, among other things, handing control of the U.S. House back to the GOP in the 2010 election.
This chart via GOP lobbyist Bruce Mehlman tells that story in stark terms, however it has not been updated to include the results of the 2015 election.

This unprecedented shift at the state level is a direct result of Obama’s attempts to push his liberal agenda on all Americans, coupled with his constant attempts to increase the power of the executive branch at the expense of Congress and the courts.
States are pushing back against Obama’s agenda, showing Democrats that not everyone is willing to simply go along with their plan for an all-powerful federal government.

The top ten things to say to a Liberal when Donald Trump is elected President.

Archives | 2015-11-12 | Unknown 

1. Your papers, please.
2. Are you going to Bible study tonight? You know, its mandatory now.
3. I hear Canada is beautiful in the winter.
4. I think I saw your name on the 'red list'.
5. Don't feel so bad, you still have Hollywood.
6. There was a guy in an unmarked Suburban asking about you.
7. Now that you're a minority, you can get affirmative action.
8. I picked up a copy of Fahrenheit 911 for 50 cents at Wal-Mart.
9. Did you hear they have Fox News in Canada now?
10. Your draft notice should be arriving soon in the mail.
11. Stop your whining and get into the revival tent.
12. NO! You can't have your country back!
13. Ted Cruz will make a great Supreme Court Justice!
14. Rumors have been circulating about the Trump administration establishing re-education camps in which liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer and watch NASCAR.
15. Registered Democrats will be required to take sensitivity training classes on conservative values.
16. The American flag will be replaced with the American stars and bars.
17. Aren't you supposed to be in reeducation camp?
18. Four more years. Learn it, Live it, LOVE IT!
19. When they come to get you, you can hide in my attic Don't worry; I will do my best to make sure you are well treated in detention
20. Hillary can share her prison cell with madeline Albright.

What about JOBS?


What matters


Fire Extinguishers


JEB can fix what?




Conjoined Twins




Wrong Dumpster






Three Stooges


Don't worry!




Piece of cake!