Monday, February 29, 2016

Media Ignore Farrakhan's Endorsement of Obama ^ | October 11, 2008 | Ronald Kessler 

Imagine the media frenzy that would ensue if David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan endorsed John McCain for president. Yet Louis Farrakhan's endorsement of Barack Obama has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media.
Speaking to a convention of the Nation of Islam, Farrakhan not only declared his support for Obama, but also told his followers that Obama was the "Messiah."
"You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth," Farrakhan said. "And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn't care anything about. That's a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking."
Farrakhan compared Obama to Nation of Islam founder Wallace D. Fard Muhammad, whom Farrakhan says also had a white mother and black father.
"A black man with a white mother became a savior to us," Farrakhan said. "A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall."
Incredibly, only Fox News and a few other news outlets have run Farrakhan's endorsement. Farrakhan made the statement last February, but it only recently appeared on YouTube.
While Obama has no control over who endorses him, the nature of those who express affinity with him provides insight into who he is and what his agenda could be. Obama's endorsers and supporters range from admitted terrorist William Ayers and Weatherman Underground leader Bernardine Dohrn to Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, the New Black Panthers, the New SDS, and a host of other radical organizations and individuals.
Among other things, the New Black Panthers favors releasing all blacks from jails throughout the world and giving blacks reparations for slavery.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Trump Grows Stronger Ahead of Super Tuesday, Poll Shows

Morning Consult ^ | 2/29/2016 | Morning Consult 

Real estate mogul and Republican front-runner for president Donald Trump increased his lead over Florida Sen. Marco Rubio ahead of Super Tuesday, according to a new Morning Consult national survey.
If Rubio hoped that going negative on Trump in the most recent GOP debate and on the campaign stump would reap benefits with voters, it hasn’t resonated with our national respondents. Forty-four percent of voters polled are backing the New York businessman, an increase of two percentage points from a few days ago. Meanwhile, Rubio dropped from 19 percent to 14 percent, with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz moving into second with 15 percent of voters’ support.

Trump 44
Cruz 15
Rubio 14
Carson 9
Kasich 5
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Jihadis in Syria resorting to selling US supplied surplus weapons on Facebook.

Sott ^ | 2/28/2016 

The US has been dumping so many weapons into the Syrian conflict that there is now an apparent surplus. ISIS has since taken to selling them online.
Last year, the Free Thought Project reported on a video, apparently recorded just outside of Aleppo, Syria. The video illustrated just how insane the US "War on Terror" has become.
In the video, the U.S. backed, armed, and financed Free Syrian Army, (aka moderate rebels, aka ISIS-linked terrorists) are firing a U.S. supplied anti-tank TOW guided missile.
Of course, the 'moderate rebels' firing a US missile is nothing out of the ordinary. However, what makes this U.S. paid for missile so special is that it was fired at what is clearly a U.S. paid for Humvee.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Central Banks Have Signed Their Death Warrants

Daily Reckoning ^ | February 22, 2016 | David Stockman 

Central Banks Have Signed Their Death Warrants

During the past year U.S. consumption spending for health care rose by 5%. Spending at restaurants and bars were up by 9%, while spending for gasoline and other energy products was down by 22%.
This was Mr. Market at work--millions of households reallocating their spending in response to relative price changes. It had nothing to do with a macroeconomic abstraction called "weak demand".
Actually, the medical care component of the CPI rose 3.3% last year. Housing and shelter were up by 3.2%, while gasoline prices were down by 7.3%. It all added up to a 1.34% annual change in the overall CPI index by the sheer coincidence of BLS's arbitrary weightings of the index components.
Again, it had nothing to do with the pace of total consumption expenditures or any other measurement of "aggregate demand."
Ultimately, the central bankers will go for the real thing--NIRP for real people who are trying to save a nest egg. To be sure, a pipe-smoking economist will say there's no appreciable difference between positive 30 basis points and negative 30 basis points on a CD.
But there is. And the great political inflection point will come when policy elites try to pull that stunt on real people. NIRP will be the flashing neon lights announcing that the government is confiscating the people's savings and wealth.
When they actually try to impose NIRP on their own people and not just the commercial banks, the central banks will be signing their political death warrants. That day can come none too soon.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

If Donald Trump gets Republican nomination, he'll win presidency!

Newsday ^ | February 27, 2016 | Edward B. Colby 

If Donald Trump wins the Republican presidential primary, he is almost a shoo-in to win the presidency this November, a Stony Brook University professor predicts.
Professor Helmut Norpoth's statistical model, which looks at a candidate's performance in their party's presidential primary and factors in the broader electoral cycle, shows that Trump has a 97 percent chance of beating Hillary Clinton in the general election, reported Stony Brook's newspaper The Statesman. His odds rise to 99 percent against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
The professor of political science presented his 2016 forecast at the SUNY Global Center in Manhattan on Monday.
"Trump beats Hillary 54.7 percent to 45.3 percent. This is almost too much to believe," Norpoth said as he showed his forecast for that potential matchup, using data from the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries. "The probability of that [outcome] is almost complete certainty, 97 percent. It's almost 'Take it to the bank.'"
The model's high confidence in a Trump win is due to his relatively high success so far, Norporth said. The model also factors in the electoral cycle, which makes it difficult for a party to hold the White House three terms in a row, as the Democrats are trying to do in 2016....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Sen. Jeff Sessions Changes the Trajectory of American Politics — and Perhaps American History

Breitbart ^ | February 28, 2016 | Virgil 

To the catchy riff from Sweet Home Alabama, Sen. Jeff Sessions took the podium in Madison, Alabama, on Sunday afternoon and changed the trajectory of the 2016 Republican nomination fight—and perhaps also of U.S. history.
In becoming the first U.S. Senator to endorse Trump, Sessions, regarded as the gold-standard of immigration hawkery, declared, “Politicians have promised for 30 years to fix illegal immigration. Have they done it?” As the crowd shouted, No!, Sessions answered: “Donald Trump will do it.”
Then Sessions added, “I’ve told Donald Trump this isn’t a campaign, this is a movement...”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Why Trump and Sanders Were Inevitable

The Politico Magazine ^ | February 28, 2016 | Michael Hirsh 

It was only a matter of time before we had a populist backlash to 30 years of flawed globalization policies that both parties embraced.

There were, in retrospect, clear signs of what was to come--signs that if Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders did not appear on the scene, someone else like them would have. We've had decades of forewarnings as the top income earners --the "one percent"--began taking bigger shares of our economy starting in the 1980s: The anti-globalization protests of the late 1990s. The rise of Ross "NAFTA-will-suck-our-jobs-away" Perot and Pat "Pitchforks" Buchanan against the GOP establishment. The brief but intense Occupy Wall Street movement. The adoration of Elizabeth Warren. The warnings from superstar economist Thomas Piketty in recent years that the United States was suffering the worst income inequality in the developed world, worse than anything since the 1920s--and that it was not sustainable.
Above all, there was the drip-drip-drip social acid of stagnating middle-class income--interrupted by the false dawn of the mid-2000s mortgage mania, when the poor felt rich but in truth were only more indebted--and the simultaneous self-isolation of our increasingly uber-wealthy class over three long decades. All without any effective policy response from Washington to redress the widening income gap....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Computer Programmer testifies "US ELECTIONS RIGGED".

Youtube ^ | 09/07/11 

Clinton Eugene Curtis, a computer programmer from Florida, testified before a congressional panel that there are computer programs that can be used to secretly fix elections. He explains how he created a prototype for Florida Congressman Tom Feeny that would flip the vote 51%-49% in favor of a specified candidate.

This happened all the way back in 2001 but you might not have heard anything about this claim unless you searched for it. I've seen a Wired News report on this topic and a few local Florida newspaper stories but otherwise, no real media coverage has been provided. You'd think claims of election rigging software would be splattered all over the News yet as it turns out, our news media prefers to point out voting fraud in other nations but not here in THE UNITED STATES.

Mr Curtis a Software programmer who worked for NASA, Exxon Mobil & the US Department of Transportation in a sworn-oath deposition testifies that US elections are rigged by inserting software into the voting system. The timing of this deposition was just after George W Bush being re-elected president of the United States. We are not surprised that this never made it into the main stream media.

Mr Curtis goes on to name US Representatives who attempted to pay him to rig their election vote counts.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The OATH KEEPERS and their declaration of the orders they will NOT obey

Coach Is Right ^ | 2/29/2016 | Doug Book 

“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army” – Gen. George Washington, to his troops before the battle of Long Island

We have become witnesses to the wholesale intimidation by design of the American people; an abuse of authority which features the use of sheer, overwhelming force to amend any dangerous “anti-government” sentiments of a proud and recalcitrant people who still believe the rights of the individual take precedence over the dictates of the state.
Too many police departments have become militarized arms of city and state government. A study “…funded in part by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) …declared that citizens who are concerned about individual liberty and are suspicious of centralized government authority are “extreme right wing terrorists.”
Upon signing into law the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), “…a US citizen on US soil can lawfully be killed by the US military if the military believes that citizen to be a terrorist affiliated with Al Qaeda or its allies.” Today the absolute right of the federal government to kill American citizens depends upon nothing more than President Obama’s unsubstantiated claim of their involvement in potentially dangerous, anti-government activities.
Not on Our Watch. This is the motto of the Oath Keepers.
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, peace officers, fire-fighters, and veterans who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic … and meant it. We won’t “just follow orders.”
Below is our declaration of orders we will NOT obey because we will consider them unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral violations of the natural rights of the people. Such orders would be acts of war against the American people by their own government, and thus acts of treason. We will not make war against our own people. We will not commit treason. We will defend the Republic.

The Orders We Will NOT Obey

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects – such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.
3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.
10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
It is particularly significant that Oath Keepers begins its litany of orders which members will not obey with “attempts to disarm the American people.”
The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights. Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. We will not make war on our own people, and we will not commit treason by obeying any such treasonous order.
Nor will we assist, or support any such attempt to disarm the people by other government entities, either state or federal.
In addition, we affirm that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military power of the people so that they will, in the last resort, have effective final recourse to arms and to the God of Hosts in the face of tyranny.
Thousands of police officers, National Guardsmen, Firefighters and active and retired members of the United States Military have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. In joining Oath Keepers these men and women have reaffirmed their vow to defend the natural and constitutionally guaranteed rights of the American people.
We owe them our respect and our support.

How the Clintons “Disappeared” a Film that Exposed their Role in US Terror Attacks

Free Thought Project ^ | 2/28/2016 | Claire Bernish 

On the anniversary of the first bombing of the World Trade Center, it’s necessary to revisit Hillary Clinton’s role in banning a film which cast her and former President, Bill Clinton, in an accurately unfavorable light.
Multiple award-winning filmmaker Cyrus Nowrasteh directed the 2006 miniseries, The Path to 9/11, which covered the period of time from the first bombing of the Trade Center on February 26, 1993, to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Nowrasteh included a critical examination of the former President’s inexplicable failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden on multiple occasions. Despite the series’ popularity and critical acclaim, the Clintons managed to ‘disappear’ the film — essentially banning it in the United States.
“The amazing thing was, the Clintons were able to put pressure on Disney/ABC basically to bury their own movie that they spent $40 million on, The Path to 9/11, which did air once, by the way, over two nights, and was number one in the ratings with 20 million viewers,” Nowrasteh told Brian Sussman on the KSFO Morning Show. “But Disney said it was, quote, ‘a business decision’ — essentially they caved to the Clintons, who, as far as censorship in my experience, are in many ways more effective than the ayatollahs in Iran.”
In fact, pulling the film as a business decision is as effective a guise as a sieve is at holding water. So popular was its first and only broadcast, distribution on other networks and the right to re-air the film would have garnered hefty returns.
“The Clintons made sure that no one can see The Path to 9/11,” Nowrasteh continued, “which is, by the way, the most detailed and informative account” of the time period from 1993 until 2001. Covering that time “in factual detail, which was really the problem for the Clintons because we portray the opportunities that Bill Clinton had to kill bin Laden, and passed on it.”
In 2006, Accuracy in Media reported the censorship effort by Sen. Harry Reid and other Democrats in Congress had such heft, they “went over the line in threatening to revoke ABC’s broadcast license unless changes were made to benefit former President Clinton and officials of his Administration.”
Now, as Hillary’s campaign is dealing with backlash over her statement that she doesn’t believe she’s ever lied to the American public, the censoring of The Path to 9/11 again becomes a pertinent bit of historical context. Rather than taking responsibility for errors and pitfalls of the past, the Clintons choose instead to impose crushing censorship — as if covering the truth will somehow make it disappear.
Nowrasteh noted the Clintons “made sure the DVD was never released of The Path to 9/11, so Americans could not see it; and made sure that it was never rebroadcast — it is basically the only banned film in America.”
When asked by Sussman, based on his experience, how Hillary Clinton would “operate as President of the United States,” Nowrasteh replied, “She’s out … they’re out to silence their critics, as aggressively as they can possibly get away with … and what we know about the Clintons is they get away with a lot.”
Of course, this suppression of the series occurred as a “direct result of [Hillary’s] run for the Presidency — her initial run” in the 2008 election cycle.
Nowrasteh, who is Iranian-American, experienced outright censorship of at least one of his other works, The Stoning of Soraya M., in Iran. Despite that unabashed suppression, smuggled copies of the film still managed to reach an Iranian audience — an option that was physically impossible for The Path to 9/11 in the U.S., thanks to the Clintons and their political supporters.
Sussman zeroed in on this fact to ask the filmmaker, “Which is worse … the blatant censorship in Iran? … Or the sophisticated, backroom censorship here in the United States, conducted by the Clintons?”
“I think the latter is worse, because we know better,” Nowrasteh explained. “This country is founded on freedom of expression, and freedom of artistic expression, and the mainstream media fell in line behind the Clintons.”
And, in the midst of Hillary’s second attempt to win the Presidency, the mainstream media arguably still capitulate and cater to the Clintons.

TV Pundits Praise Hillary Clinton On Air, Fail to Disclose Financial Ties to Her Campaign

The Intercept ^ | Feb. 25 2016 | Lee Fang 

Tune into television coverage of the presidential campaign and undoubtedly you will hear from various pundits described as "former campaign strategists" and "political contributors" explaining the latest developments of the race. But in many cases, these pundits - though introduced as neutral experts on campaigns or party politics - in fact have financial ties to the candidates they praise on the air.
Several consultants who work at firms retained by Hillary Clinton's campaign and her affiliated Super PACs appear regularly on the major television networks, frequently touting Clinton. ...
"Journalism 101 teaches that reporters and TV news hosts must properly identify their sources and analysts," says Jeff Cohen, an associate professor of journalism at Ithaca College. We reached out to NBC, CBS, CNN, and ABC News, but did not hear back.
Stephanie Cutter, for example, has appeared on multiple networks to discuss Clinton, and is typically introduced as a former campaign official for President Barack Obama. What hasn't been disclosed in any of her appearances reviewed by The Intercept, however, is that the boutique consulting firm she co-founded, Precision Strategies, has been retained by the Clinton campaign for "digital consulting," according to Federal Election Commission records. Precision Strategies has been paid at least $120,049 from the Clinton campaign since June of last year.
"I think that Hillary Clinton has done everything right. She has run a good campaign. She has outperformed in debates. She's raised money. She's got a great ground game," said Cutter, speaking about the upcoming New Hampshire and Iowa primaries on NBC's Meet the Press on January 17. She was introduced as "President Obama's 2012 deputy campaign manager." Her company's affiliation with the Clinton campaign was not disclosed.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Peace Plan


Empty Chair


Our Flag


All This




Is he QUEER?


Retarded Cousin


Smarter Phone